R v Gabbert

Case [2010] QCA 133


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gabbert [2010] QCA 133

PARTIES:

R
v
GABBERT, Scott Andrew
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 44 of 2010
SC No 8 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Allow the application for leave to appeal;

2.    Allow the appeal;

3.    Set aside the sentences imposed at first instance and substitute for each a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at 19 August 2010.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine – applicant sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment on each count with a parole release date of 19 December 2010 – applicant supplied the drug to an undercover police officer – count 1 involved supply of 0.102 grams of pure methylamphetamine for $900 – count 2 involved supply of 0.068 grams of pure methylamphetamine for $380 – sentencing judge found applicant was supplying the drug commercially – applicant had a significant criminal history and was a repeat offender – applicant had a troubled childhood – applicant had a lengthy history of drug use – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Anable[2005] QCA 208, considered
R v Bagnall[2005] QCA 20, considered
R v Daly (2004) 147 A Crim R 440; [2004] QCA 385, considered
R v Duggan[2004] QCA 442, considered
R v Kunst [2003] 2 Qd R 98; [2002] QCA 400, considered
R v L[2002] QCA 485, cited
R v Neave [1995] QCA 342, considered
R v Robinson[2008] QCA 365, considered

COUNSEL:

A Collins for the applicant
A Anderson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1.   HOLMES JA:I agree with the reasons of Muir JA and the orders he proposes.

  1. MUIR JA:  Introduction

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court in Townsville and was convicted on 19 February 2010 of one count of unlawfully supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine on 5 September 2008 (count 1) and one count of unlawfully supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine on 12 September 2008 (count 2).  He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years on each count with a parole release date of 19 December 2010.

The offending conduct

  1. In the course of a covert police operation, a police officer (Kennedy), formed an association with a third party (Hollis).  Hollis was approached on 5 September 2008 by Kennedy with a request to purchase methylamphetamine.  Later that day, Kennedy and Hollis met the applicant at…

Continue reading R v Gabbert

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Gabbert [2010] QCA 133
Case
[2010] QCA 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Gabbert, was convicted of two counts of unlawfully supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine. The sentencing judge found that Gabbert was supplying the drug commercially and took into account his significant criminal history, troubled childhood, and history of drug use. Gabbert was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment on each count, with a parole release date of 19 December 2010. Gabbert appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles set out in previous case law, which provide that a sentence is manifestly excessive if it is outside the range of sentences that could be regarded as reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The court also considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s criminal history, and any other relevant factors.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the quantity of drugs supplied was relatively small and that the applicant had pleaded guilty and shown remorse. The court also noted that the applicant had a troubled background and had been a repeat offender. However, the court found that the sentence of two and a half years imprisonment was too severe given the circumstances of the case. The court considered that a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date of 19 August 2010 was more appropriate.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentences imposed at first instance. The court substituted for each a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at 19 August 2010.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the application for leave to appeal;

2. Allow the appeal;

3. Set aside the sentences imposed at first instance and substitute for each a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at 19 August 2010.

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.