R v Dolan

Case [2008] QCA 41


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dolan [2008] QCA 41

PARTIES:

R
v
DOLAN, Nicholas Anthony
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 373 of 2007
SC No 772 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

5 March 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Fraser JA concurring as to the orders made, Mullins J dissenting in part

ORDER:

1.   Application for leave to appeal granted

2.   Appeal allowed

3.   Sentence imposed on 14 December 2007 set aside and instead substitute order that applicant be sentenced on count 1, to two years imprisonment and on each of counts 2 and 3, to three months imprisonment.

4.   The date the applicant be released on parole is fixed at 5 March 2008.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking and possessing cannabis sativa and possessing money knowingly obtained from trafficking – where trafficking conviction based solely upon appellant's admissions – where the appellant, who was 23 at the time of the offence, had excellent prospects of rehabilitation – where appellant sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after four months, with an operational period of three years – where sentencing judge did not impose individual sentences for each count on the indictment – whether judge erred by not imposing individual sentences for each count, requiring the Court of Appeal to re-exercise the sentencing discretion

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin SC appeared for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT:  The applicant, Nicholas Anthony Dolan, pleaded guilty on 14 December 2007 to one count of trafficking in cannabis sativa, count 1;  possessing cannabis sativa, count 2;  and possessing a sum of money knowingly obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug, count 3.  He was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after serving four months, with an operational period of three years.  It follows that he is presently due for release on 14 April 2008.

He seeks leave to appeal against his sentence, contending in his application that it was manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge erred in failing to specify what count the sentence related to.

Although Mr Dolan appears self-represented today by telephone from the Correctional Centre at which he is incarcerated, his Counsel at sentence, Mr P E Smith, has prepared, pro bono, a written outline of submissions.  Mr Smith also emphasises that the judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the rehabilitative efforts and prospects of Mr Dolan and the detrimental impact of a custodial sentence on these matters.

The circumstances surrounding the offences…

Continue reading R v Dolan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dolan [2008] QCA 41
Case
[2008] QCA 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dolan involved an appellant who had pleaded guilty to trafficking, possessing cannabis sativa, and possessing money knowingly obtained from trafficking. The conviction for trafficking was based solely on the appellant's admissions. At the time of the offence, the appellant was 23 years old and had excellent prospects for rehabilitation. The sentencing judge handed down a sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended after four months, with an operational period of three years. The judge did not impose individual sentences for each count on the indictment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred by not imposing separate sentences for each count, thus requiring the Court of Appeal to re-exercise the sentencing discretion. The appellant argued that the lack of individual sentencing for each count was an error in principle and led to an inappropriate overall sentence.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred by not imposing individual sentences for each count. The court concluded that separate sentences should have been imposed to accurately reflect the nature and gravity of each offence. As a result, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and substituted a new order. The appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for the trafficking offence and three months imprisonment for each of the other two counts. The date for the appellant's release on parole was set at 5 March 2008.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Sentence imposed on 14 December 2007 set aside and instead substitute order that applicant be sentenced on count 1, to two years imprisonment and on each of counts 2 and 3, to three months imprisonment.

4. The date the applicant be released on parole is fixed at 5 March 2008.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.