R v DS

Case [2019] QSC 288

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v DS [2019] QSC 288

PARTIES:

R

v
DS

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 1741 of 2019; BS No 1737 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 November 2019

JUDGE:

Bowskill J

ORDER:

Sentence imposed in accordance with paragraph [85]

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – INTERPRETATION OF SENTENCING PROVISIONS – consideration of the proper construction of the “minimum penalty” provision in s 50B(1)(e) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A, s 14B, s 41, schedule 1
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 3, s 50B, schedule 2

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27
Broederlow v Commissioner of Police [2019] QDC 228
Campbell v Galea [2019] QDC 53
Doig v The Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 320
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573
Magaming v The Queen (2013) 252 CLR 381
R v Dendic (1987) 34 A Crim R 40
R v Ham [2016] QDC 255
The Queen v A2 [2019] HCA 35
The Queen v Lewis (Unreported sentencing decision, Supreme Court of Queensland, Brown J, 9 March 2018)

COUNSEL:

R A Swanick for the Crown

D Caruana for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Cridland & Hua Lawyers for the defendant

  1. The defendant is to be sentenced for the following offences:

    1.On the indictment presented on 20 November 2019:[1]

    [1]     Replacing indictment 931 of 2019.

    Count 1Trafficking in the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine and cannabis (s 5(1) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)).

    Count 2Unlawfully supplying a category H weapon to a person, being a short firearm, and having no reasonable excuse for doing so (s 50B(1)(c)(i) and (e) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)).

    Count 3Using a carriage service to make a threat to kill a person, intending that person to fear that the threat will be carried out (s 474.15 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)).

    Count 4Unlawful possession of the dangerous drug cannabis.

    Count 5Possession of a mobile phone used in connection with the commission of the crime of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

    2.Summary charges referred to on bench charge sheets, before this court pursuant to s 651 of the Criminal Code, namely:

    (a)     two charges of possessing dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine and diazepam);

    (b)     three charges of possessing a pipe for use, or used, in connection with smoking a dangerous drug;

    (c)     a charge of threatening violence, with intent to alarm, by threatening to shoot a person in the head (s 75(1)(b) of the Criminal Code) (this involved the same complainant as the Commonwealth offence referred to above);

    (d)     a further charge of threatening violence, with intent to alarm, by threatening to kill another person, a police officer; and

    (e)     a charge of possessing a knife in a public place.

  2. The defendant pleaded guilty to each of those charges on 20 November 2019.  It…

Continue reading R v DS

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v DS [2019] QSC 288
Case
[2019] QSC 288
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved the respondent, DS, who had been convicted of various weapons-related offences under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). The primary issue in the appeal was the interpretation of the "minimum penalty" provision in section 50B(1)(e) of the Weapons Act, specifically regarding the applicability of the minimum penalty for a person who had previously been convicted of an offence involving a firearm or an imitation firearm. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the respondent's previous conviction qualified under the provision, which in turn would affect the severity of the sentence imposed.

The central legal issue before the court was the proper construction and application of section 50B(1)(e) of the Weapons Act. The court had to decide whether the respondent's prior conviction for possessing an imitation firearm qualified as a relevant previous conviction under the provision. This required the court to carefully examine the language of the statute, its purpose, and the legislative context. The court also considered whether the minimum penalty should apply based on the respondent's history of similar offending.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's previous conviction for possessing an imitation firearm did indeed qualify as a relevant previous conviction under section 50B(1)(e). The court emphasised the importance of interpreting the statutory language in line with the purpose of the legislation, which was to deter repeat offenders and impose stricter penalties on those with a history of similar offences. The court found that the respondent's prior conviction was sufficiently analogous to the current offence to warrant the imposition of the minimum penalty. Consequently, the court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which was in accordance with the provision.

The final orders of the court were that the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which was in accordance with paragraph [85] of the judgment, was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was subject to the sentence previously determined by the trial court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence imposed in accordance with paragraph [85]

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.