R v Eadie - [2017] QCA 109

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Eadie [2017] QCA 109

PARTIES:

R
v
EADIE, Savanah Lorraine
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 341 of 2016
SC No 34 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 28 November 2016

DELIVERED ON:

30 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Henry J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   Set aside the sentence imposed on 28 November 2016.

4.   The applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months.

5.   Declare that the period of 26 days from 28 November 2016 to 22 December 2016 be imprisonment already served.

6.   Order that the applicant’s parole release date be fixed as today.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully producing a dangerous drug – where she was sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment with a parole date fixed at six months – where she had been charged on the same indictment as her mother – where the applicant’s mother had manufactured the methylamphetamine and the applicant had only supplied materials for the manufacture of methylamphetamine – where the applicant was involved in the manufacture of methylamphetamine for the purpose of meeting her daily living expenses – where the applicant plead guilty and showed cooperation with the administration of justice

R v Day & Gill[2005] QCA 100, distinguished
R v Sabine[2007] QCA 220, distinguished

COUNSEL:

F D Richards for the applicant
R J Christensen for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against her sentence. For the reasons which follow, I would grant leave and allow the appeal.
The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully producing a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine. She was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months with a parole release date fixed at six months. She had been in custody for about a month before she was released on bail pending appeal.
The applicant had been charged on the same indictment as her mother, Sonia Michelle Read. Her mother had actually manufactured the drug. Her daughter, the applicant, had assisted her by acquiring certain necessary equipment, chemicals as well as a pre-cursor drug. The prosecution did not allege that the applicant had assisted in the actual process of manufacture.
The charges arose out of a search by police of Read’s home. Police found what the prosecutor described as “all the requirements in order to produce methylamphetamine”. Only small amounts of the actual drug were found. The quantity of necessary chemicals for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Eadie

Details

AGLC: R v Eadie [2017] QCA 109
Case: [2017] QCA 109
Decision Date: 30 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Eadie concerned the applicant who had pleaded guilty to unlawfully producing a dangerous drug. The case was heard in the higher court following her dissatisfaction with the sentence handed down in the lower court. The applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, with a parole date set for six months, after being charged alongside her mother for their involvement in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. The applicant had supplied materials for the manufacture, while her mother had been the primary manufacturer. The applicant's involvement was driven by a need to meet her daily living expenses. The applicant had demonstrated cooperation with the justice system by pleading guilty.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the applicant's level of involvement and her cooperation with authorities. The court had to weigh the sentencing principles relevant to the crime, including the role of the offender, the circumstances of the offence, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. Additionally, the court examined whether the original sentence appropriately reflected the differences between the applicant’s role and that of her mother, who was the principal manufacturer.

The court found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive given the applicant's limited role in the production of the drug and her cooperation with the authorities. The court considered the applicant's background, her limited role in the crime, and her cooperation in the administration of justice. The court determined that a sentence of 18 months was disproportionate and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to 12 months imprisonment, with the period already served taken into account. The court also ordered that the applicant's parole release date be fixed as the date of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Set aside the sentence imposed on 28 November 2016.

4. The applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months.

5. Declare that the period of 26 days from 28 November 2016 to 22 December 2016 be imprisonment already served.

6. Order that the applicant’s parole release date be fixed as today.

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.

CITATION:	R v Eadie [2017] QCA 109
PARTIES:	R v EADIE, Savanah Lorraine (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 341 of 2016 SC No 34 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 28 November 2016
DELIVERED ON:	30 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	29 May 2017
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and Henry J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Set aside the sentence imposed on 28 November 2016. 4. The applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months. 5. Declare that the period of 26 days from 28 November 2016 to 22 December 2016 be imprisonment already served. 6. Order that the applicant’s parole release date be fixed as today.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully producing a dangerous drug – where she was sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment with a parole date fixed at six months – where she had been charged on the same indictment as her mother – where the applicant’s mother had manufactured the methylamphetamine and the applicant had only supplied materials for the manufacture of methylamphetamine – where the applicant was involved in the manufacture of methylamphetamine for the purpose of meeting her daily living expenses – where the applicant plead guilty and showed cooperation with the administration of justice R v Day & Gill[2005] QCA 100, distinguished R v Sabine[2007] QCA 220, distinguished
COUNSEL:	F D Richards for the applicant R J Christensen for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent