R v FRY - [2000] QCA 89

[R v FRY & Anor]
[2000] QCA 89

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA
MOYNIHAN J

CA No 397 of 1999
CA No 17 of 2000

THE QUEEN

JOSEPHINE ANN-MAREE FRY and
GEORGE WILLIAM FRY Applicants

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/03/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: These are applications for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicants Josephine Ann-Maree Fry and George William Fry are wife and husband respectively.

They both pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court on 5 November 1999 to offences, the most serious of which were in each case trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely methylamphetamine. In fact, Josephine was convicted of trafficking and also of two counts of supply. George was convicted of trafficking, of 13 counts of supply and of seven counts of possession.

Josephine was sentenced to three years in respect of the trafficking and one year in respect of each of the counts of supply and George was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the trafficking offence and one year's imprisonment in respect of each of the offences of supply and possession.

The offences occurred between 27 September 1998 and
2 February 1999. At that time the female applicant was 22 and the male applicant was 27. Neither had any substantial previous convictions. They both had a conviction for possession of a pipe. The male applicant also had an obviously minor conviction for stealing as a servant for which he had been fined. So neither had previously been sent to gaol.

The detection of the offences arose out of a covert police operation as occurs in many of these cases and, of course, in offences of this kind the difficulty in detecting them is a relevant factor in the sentences that should be imposed, and I should also add that a major factor in these cases in imposing sentence is general deterrence.

The offenders supplied methylamphetamine to police officers on each of the occasions of supply charged. The total weight of powder supplied was over 43 grams and the weight of pure methylamphetamine was 16.8 grams but, as will appear from what I am about to say, this was only a part and probably a small part of their total operation.

When interviewed by police after his arrest George Fry admitted trafficking, said he dealt in small amounts, but that he made a living from it. He said he made $600 to $700 a week. He kept a notebook account so it was run as a business and he said he was in it for the money. He was, as appeared from his conversation with the undercover operatives, conversant with prices and availability of the drug, he was able to advise when a large shipment was imminent and, when he was unable to supply from his usual sources, he was able to supply drugs from other suppliers.

A serious aspect of this case was, as Justice Moynihan mentioned during the course of argument, the fact that he admitted and, indeed, claimed to be selling to…

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 FRY

Details

AGLC: R v Fry [2000] QCA 89
Case: [2000] QCA 89
Decision Date: 21/03/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Josephine Ann-Maree Fry and George William Fry, a married couple, were convicted of drug trafficking and supply, involving methylamphetamine. Josephine was also convicted of two counts of supply. Both applicants pleaded guilty to their charges in the Supreme Court. The most serious charge against them was trafficking in a dangerous drug, with the offences occurring between 27 September 1998 and 2 February 1999. Josephine was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for trafficking and one year for each count of supply. George received five years' imprisonment for trafficking, and one year for each count of supply and possession. The applicants sought leave to appeal against their sentences.

The main legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court were manifestly excessive. The applicants argued that the sentences were disproportionate compared to other cases, while the Crown submitted that the sentences were within the range of a sound discretionary judgment. The court needed to determine if the sentences were appropriate in light of the seriousness of the offences and the principles of sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and were within the range of a sound discretionary judgment. The court relied on the decision in Whitehouse, which involved a similar offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The court also noted that none of the comparable cases presented by the applicants were on all fours with the present case in terms of exact seriousness. The court concluded that the sentences were not excessive and therefore refused the applications for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court.

Orders