Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA concurring as to the orders made, McMeekin J dissenting
ORDERS:
Grant application for leave to appeal against sentence.1.
Allow appeal to the extent of:2.
substituting a term of nine years imprisonment for the term imposed at sentence; and(a)
fixing the applicant’s parole eligibility date at 11 May 2016.(b)
Otherwise affirm the orders made at sentence.3.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 10 years – where the sentencing judge considered a range from 10 to 12 years to be appropriate – whether this was manifestly excessive with regard to the authorities – whether the period of imprisonment imposed was manifestly excessive with regard being given to the applicant’s mitigating factors of cooperation with the authorities and injuries suffered during the course of the applicant’s arrest
P J Davis SC for the applicant B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Bosscher Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Gotterson JA's reasons for granting the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowing the appeal and with his Honour's proposed orders.
GOTTERSON JA: On 28 March 2012, the applicant, Salvatore Mario Galeano, pleaded guilty to a single count that between 30 April 2006 and 3 August 2008, he carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs and thereby committed a crime under s 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (“DM Act”).…
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 Galeano
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Galeano [2013] QCA 51
Case
[2013] QCA 51
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Galeano involved an appeal against sentence by the applicant, who had been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 10 years by the sentencing judge. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate in light of the legal principles and authorities. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the mitigating factors, such as their cooperation with the authorities and the injuries they suffered during their arrest. The court had to weigh these factors against the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution.
The court considered the grounds for interference with the sentence, focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered a range from 10 to 12 years to be appropriate. The court examined the authorities and found that the sentence imposed by the judge fell within the range considered appropriate. However, the court also took into account the mitigating factors presented by the applicant, such as their cooperation with the authorities and the injuries suffered during the arrest. The court held that these factors warranted a reduction in the sentence, leading to the conclusion that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive.
After thorough consideration of the arguments and authorities, the court granted the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a term of nine years imprisonment for the term imposed at sentence and fixing the applicant's parole eligibility date at 11 May 2016. The court otherwise affirmed the orders made at sentence. This decision reflects the court's careful balancing of the severity of the crime, the need for deterrence and retribution, and the mitigating factors presented by the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Grant application for leave to appeal against sentence.1.
Allow appeal to the extent of:2.
substituting a term of nine years imprisonment for the term imposed at sentence; and(a)
fixing the applicant’s parole eligibility date at 11 May 2016.(b)