R v Eaton - [2007] QCA 43

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Eaton [2007] QCA 43

PARTIES:

R
v
EATON, Channelle Christine Jayne
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 317 of 2006
SC No 39 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

16 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Jerrard JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying a dangerous drug – applicant was sentenced two and a half years imprisonment with parole after eights months – applicant supplied 200 ecstasy tablets – where the applicant was on probation for other offences at time of sentencing – whether sentence manifestly excessive in light of personal circumstances

R v de Carteret [2006]QCA 279,CA No 114 of 2006, 4 August 2006, distinguished
R v Sartori [2006] QCA 284, CA No 161 of 2006, 4 August 2006, cited
R v Wynward [2004] QCA 431, CA No 296 of 2004, 12 November 2004, cited
R v L [2002] QCA 485, CA No 238 of 2002, 7 November 2002, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MCMURDO P: The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed for the reasons given by Williams JA.

WILLIAMS JA: On 31 October 2006 the applicant was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment with a parole date fixed as 30 June 2007; that meant she would spend eight months in actual custody. That was the sentence imposed after the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying a dangerous drug, namely 3,4-Methylendixoymethamphetamine. She seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The offence was committed on 8 December 2005 during the course of a covert police operation designed to expose drug trafficking in the Toowoomba region. On that date the covert operative made an arrangement with a man named Armstrong to buy 200 ecstasy tablets for $23.00 each. Armstrong stated that he was using a female dealer to meet the order. Subsequently a man using the name "Olf" came to the covert police officer and told him that the supplier would be arriving in 15 minutes. The inference was that Olf was checking out the purchaser before the supplier arrived. Shortly afterwards Olf returned with the applicant. The policeman got into the applicant's vehicle and there was some discussion which seemed to indicate that the applicant understood the risk of dealing in drugs.…

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 Eaton

Details

AGLC: R v Eaton [2007] QCA 43
Case: [2007] QCA 43
Decision Date: 16 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eaton involves an appeal by the applicant against his sentence for supplying a dangerous drug. The applicant had pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying 200 ecstasy tablets and was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving eight months. The applicant was already on probation for other offences at the time of sentencing. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the applicant's personal circumstances. The court had to consider whether the sentence was disproportionate to the offence, particularly given the applicant's prior probation status and the nature of the drug supply offence.

In evaluating the appeal, the court considered the principles of sentencing and the need to ensure that the sentence reflects both the seriousness of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender. The court examined the principles of proportionality and the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment. It also considered the applicant's background, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact of the sentence on the applicant's rehabilitation prospects. The court concluded that while the applicant's personal circumstances were unfortunate, they did not warrant a departure from the sentence imposed by the primary judge.

Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the primary judge had appropriately balanced the various considerations and had imposed a sentence that was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the sentence as appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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 Eaton [2007] QCA 43
PARTIES:	R v EATON, Channelle Christine Jayne (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 317 of 2006 SC No 39 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	16 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 January 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Jerrard JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying a dangerous drug – applicant was sentenced two and a half years imprisonment with parole after eights months – applicant supplied 200 ecstasy tablets – where the applicant was on probation for other offences at time of sentencing – whether sentence manifestly excessive in light of personal circumstances R v de Carteret [2006]QCA 279,CA No 114 of 2006, 4 August 2006, distinguished R v Sartori [2006] QCA 284, CA No 161 of 2006, 4 August 2006, cited R v Wynward [2004] QCA 431, CA No 296 of 2004, 12 November 2004, cited R v L [2002] QCA 485, CA No 238 of 2002, 7 November 2002, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent