R v Ganley; R v Ganley - [2013] QCA 380

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ganley; R v Ganley [2013] QCA 380

PARTIES:

R
v
GANLEY, Dwayne Frank
(applicant)

R
v
GANLEY, Wayne John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 231 of 2012
CA No 250 of 2012
SC No 38 of 2010
SC No 986 of 2011
SC No 436 of 2012
SC No 438 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 December 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 August 2013

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser JJA and Margaret Wilson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The applications are refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, Dwayne Frank Ganley, pleaded guilty to various counts of supplying a dangerous drug, possessing a dangerous drug and possession of a thing used in connection with supplying a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months – where the applicant was involved in his brother’s trafficking business along with his father, Wayne John Ganley, but the Crown was unable to ascertain the extent of the applicant’s involvement – where the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty spanned two indictments – where the applicant committed the second series of offences whilst on bail for the first series of offences – where the applicant was aged between 28 and 29 years at the time of the offending – where the applicant had a relevant criminal history – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in fixing a parole eligibility date two months after he had served one third of the term of imprisonment – whether setting the applicant’s parole eligibility date after one third of the term of imprisonment rendered the sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, Wayne John Ganley, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine, MDMA and MDA from 1 January 2010 to 18 February 2010, possessing a thing in connection with trafficking in dangerous drugs and a summary weapons offence – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for trafficking with parole eligibility after 18 months – where the applicant was aged 54 years at the time of offending, had a minor criminal history and made efforts at rehabilitation – where the applicant contended that insufficient weight was given to his partner’s medical condition and that the sentencing judge incorrectly characterised the extent of his involvement in his son’s trafficking business – where the applicant argued the sentencing judge erred in imposing a parole eligibility date after he had served one third of the term of imprisonment – whether the sentence imposed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ganley; R v Ganley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QCA 380
Decision Date: 17 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dwayne Frank Ganley and Wayne John Ganley appealed against their sentences, contending that they were manifestly excessive. Dwayne Ganley pleaded guilty to multiple counts of supplying, possessing, and using an implement in connection with supplying a dangerous drug, for which he received concurrent terms of four years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months. He was part of his brother's trafficking business, along with his father, but the extent of his involvement was unclear. Wayne Ganley pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, possessing a thing in connection with trafficking, and a summary weapons offence, for which he received four years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months. Wayne Ganley argued that insufficient weight was given to his partner's medical condition and that the sentencing judge incorrectly characterised his involvement in his son's trafficking business.

The court examined whether the parole eligibility dates rendered the sentences manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and extent of the applicants' criminal history, their age, and their efforts towards rehabilitation. The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the crimes and that the parole eligibility dates were appropriately set after one third of the term of imprisonment.

The applications for appeal against sentence were refused. The sentences imposed by the primary judge were affirmed, and the applicants' contentions regarding the parole eligibility dates were rejected.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applications are refused.

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 Ganley; R v Ganley [2013] QCA 380
PARTIES:	R v GANLEY, Dwayne Frank (applicant) R v GANLEY, Wayne John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 231 of 2012 CA No 250 of 2012 SC No 38 of 2010 SC No 986 of 2011 SC No 436 of 2012 SC No 438 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Applications
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 December 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 August 2013
JUDGES:	Muir and Fraser JJA and Margaret Wilson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The applications are refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, Dwayne Frank Ganley, pleaded guilty to various counts of supplying a dangerous drug, possessing a dangerous drug and possession of a thing used in connection with supplying a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months – where the applicant was involved in his brother’s trafficking business along with his father, Wayne John Ganley, but the Crown was unable to ascertain the extent of the applicant’s involvement – where the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty spanned two indictments – where the applicant committed the second series of offences whilst on bail for the first series of offences – where the applicant was aged between 28 and 29 years at the time of the offending – where the applicant had a relevant criminal history – where the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in fixing a parole eligibility date two months after he had served one third of the term of imprisonment – whether setting the applicant’s parole eligibility date after one third of the term of imprisonment rendered the sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant, Wayne John Ganley, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine, MDMA and MDA from 1 January 2010 to 18 February 2010, possessing a thing in connection with trafficking in dangerous drugs and a summary weapons offence – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for trafficking with parole eligibility after 18 months – where the applicant was aged 54 years at the time of offending, had a minor criminal history and made efforts at rehabilitation – where the applicant contended that insufficient weight was given to his partner’s medical condition and that the sentencing judge incorrectly characterised the extent of his involvement in his son’s trafficking business – where the applicant argued the sentencing judge erred in imposing a parole eligibility date after he had served one third of the term of imprisonment – whether the sentence imposed…