R v Filippa - [2008] QSC 39

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Filippa [2008] QSC 39

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

TODD SEAN FILIPPA
(defendant)

INDICTMENT NO/S:

412 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Contested sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11-15, 18-20, 22, 25-29 February 2008

JUDGE:

Lyons J

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG OFFENCES – TRAFFICKING – OTHER MATTERS – where defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine – where the defendant disputed the timeframe of involvement in trafficking – where determination of the timeframe of involvement in trafficking – whether the period of trafficking on the indictment was established.

CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG OFFENCES – TRAFFICKING – OTHER MATTERS – where defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine – where the defendant disputed the extent of involvement in trafficking – where determination of the extent of the involvement in trafficking – whether the extent of the involvement alleged was established.

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 15

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, cited
Tripodi v R (1961) 104 CLR 1; [1961] HCA 22, cited

COUNSEL:

D R MacKenzie with C C Minnery for the Crown
A J Donaldson for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown
Ryan and Bosscher for the defendant

LYONS J:

The charge

[1] The defendant, Todd Sean Filippa is currently 44 years of age and on 31 January 2008 he pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine between the first day of January 2003 and ninth day of December 2004. He was charged on this indictment (412/2006) with Scott Adams, Warren Bourke, Christopher Plaszewski, Antonio Lalli-Cafini and Billie Jo Scofield. Whilst the defendant has pleaded guilty and admits a limited involvement in production and trafficking in methylamphetamine at Ryalls Road on 27 August 2004, he disputes many of the other facts on which the charge is based.

[2] A hearing, occupying some three weeks of court time, was therefore conducted to determine the factual basis of the plea prior to sentencing the defendant. The Crown presented extensive evidence and the defendant gave evidence as did Warren Bourke and three former employees from the defendant’s nightclub Scores

[3] These reasons therefore set out the version of the facts of which I am satisfied.

Relevant legislation

[4] A contested sentence such as this is governed by the provisions of s 132C of the Evidence Act 1977 which provides as follows:

“132C Fact finding on sentencing
(1)This section applies to any sentencing procedure in a criminal proceeding.
(2)The sentencing judge or magistrate may act on an allegation of fact that is admitted or not challenged.
(3)If an allegation of fact is not admitted or is challenged, the sentencing judge or magistrate may act on the allegation if the judge or magistrate is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the allegation is true.
(4)For subsection (3), the degree…

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 Filippa

Details

AGLC: R v Filippa [2008] QSC 39
Case: [2008] QSC 39
Decision Date: 6 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Filippa, the defendant was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine. The dispute centred on the timeframe and extent of the defendant's involvement in the trafficking activities. The case was heard in the relevant criminal court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the timeframe of the defendant's involvement in the trafficking activities, as alleged in the indictment, was established, and whether the extent of the defendant's involvement in the trafficking activities was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant disputed both the timeframe and extent of their involvement.

The court examined the evidence presented and determined that the timeframe of the defendant's involvement in the trafficking activities was indeed established, as the evidence provided a clear and consistent account of the period in question. The court also found that the extent of the defendant's involvement in the trafficking activities was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence demonstrated a significant level of involvement. The court's reasoning was based on the comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented, which provided a clear and detailed account of the defendant's involvement in the trafficking activities.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's conviction for trafficking in methylamphetamine was upheld, with the specific timeframe and extent of the defendant's involvement in the trafficking activities being established as alleged in the indictment. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applied in the case.

Orders