R v Gatti - [2013] QCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gatti [2013] QCA 97

PARTIES:

R
v
GATTI, Maurice
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 291 of 2012
DC No 114 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

3 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2013

JUDGE:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Martin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to possessing the dangerous drug cannabis and the quantity exceeded 500 grams – where the learned sentencing judge took into account the applicant’s good record and that he was introduced to cannabis as a form of pain relief – where the applicant disputes evidence that was tendered at trial by consent with respect to the estimate of cannabis found at the applicant’s address – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Batemberski[2000] QCA 475, cited
R v Boyle [1995] QCA 396, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Martin J’s reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal. On the uncontested facts before the sentencing court, the sentence imposed was within range, despite the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history. He was a mature man who sought to make a profit from his involvement with a large quantity of unlawful drugs. The sentence imposed is supported by the sentences imposed in R v Boyle[1] and R v Batemberski.[2] I agree with the order proposed by Martin J.
[1][1995] QCA 396.
[2][2000] QCA 475.

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Martin J and the order proposed by his Honour.

MARTIN J: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of possessing a dangerous drug (cannabis) and that the quantity of that drug exceeded 500 grams.

He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months with that term being suspended after serving a period of 10 months’ imprisonment; the suspension had an operational period of three years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

At the sentence hearing an agreed schedule of facts was tendered. It contained the following information. When police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s address, they found 18 cannabis plants drying out in the lounge room and different amounts of cannabis lying on plastic sheets on the floor. The cannabis plants had had their roots chopped off and were approximately 1.5 metres in height. The…

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 Gatti

Details

AGLC: R v Gatti [2013] QCA 97
Case: [2013] QCA 97
Decision Date: 3 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gatti involved an appeal against sentence, where the applicant had pleaded guilty in the District Court to possessing cannabis in excess of 500 grams. The sentencing judge considered the applicant's clean record and his introduction to cannabis as a form of pain relief, which led to the imposition of a sentence that the applicant deemed excessive. The applicant contested the amount of cannabis found, questioning the reliability of the evidence presented at the trial, which had been admitted by consent. The central legal issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court examined the mitigating factors, such as the applicant's good character and the context of his involvement with cannabis, as well as the contested evidence regarding the quantity of the drug. The court noted that while the sentence was severe, it was not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence, particularly given the large quantity of the drug involved. The court concluded that the sentence did not meet the threshold of being manifestly excessive.

In light of the court's reasoning, the application for an appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances, and did not represent an error of law or a manifestly excessive penalty. The decision underscores the importance of balancing the severity of the offence with the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Gatti [2013] QCA 97
PARTIES:	R v GATTI, Maurice (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 291 of 2012 DC No 114 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	3 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2013
JUDGE:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Martin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to possessing the dangerous drug cannabis and the quantity exceeded 500 grams – where the learned sentencing judge took into account the applicant’s good record and that he was introduced to cannabis as a form of pain relief – where the applicant disputes evidence that was tendered at trial by consent with respect to the estimate of cannabis found at the applicant’s address – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Batemberski[2000] QCA 475, cited R v Boyle [1995] QCA 396, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent