R v GBP - [2024] QCA 200

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v GBP [2024] QCA 200

PARTIES:

R
v
GBP
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 260 of 2023
SC No 1469 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 8 December 2023 (Ryan J)

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 September 2024

JUDGES:

Bond and Brown JJA and Cooper J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of serious drug offences – where the applicant operated a sophisticated wholesale business of trafficking in cocaine and MDMA for profit – where the applicant engaged in trafficking for a period of just over five weeks, although the full extent of trafficking was unknown – where the learned trial judge found that the starting point for sentence was 10 to 11 years – whether her Honour’s starting point of 10 to 11 years for sentence caused the sentence to be manifestly excessive in light of the duration of offending, early pleas of guilty and evidence of rehabilitation

R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183, cited
R v Castner[2018] QCA 265, considered
R v Corbett[2018] QCA 341, considered
R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered
R v McGinniss[2015] QCA 34, considered
R v Nunn[2019] QCA 100, considered

COUNSEL:

D M Caruana for the applicant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Phillips Crawford Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

BOND JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Brown JA and the order proposed by her Honour.
BROWN JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence handed down by Ryan J in relation to serious drug offences committed by the applicant.
On 7 December 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to the following counts:
(a)trafficking in cocaine and MDMA (count 1);
(b)supplying cocaine and MDMA (count 2);
(c)supplying cocaine (count 3);
(d)supplying cocaine and MDMA (count 4);
(e)supplying cocaine (count 5);
(f)supplying cocaine (count 6);
(g)possessing cocaine in excess of 2 grams (count 7);
(h)possessing testosterone, psilocin and psilocybin (count 8); and
(i)possessing tainted property obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug (count 9).
On 8 December 2023, Ryan J sentenced the applicant on count 1 to a term of eight years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date set after he had served three years. He was convicted and not further punished in relation to counts 2-9. The applicant also pleaded guilty to a summary charge relating to the possession of fireworks for which he was also convicted but not further punished.
Although the application originally advanced two grounds of appeal, the applicant…

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 GBP

Details

AGLC: R v GBP [2024] QCA 200
Case: [2024] QCA 200
Decision Date: 29 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, the Queen, appealed against the sentence imposed on the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to various drug-related offences. The applicant was found to have operated a large-scale wholesale drug trafficking business, dealing in cocaine and MDMA, over a period of just over five weeks. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, particularly considering the duration of the offending, the early pleas of guilty by the applicant, and evidence of rehabilitation.

The court considered the starting point for sentencing, which the trial judge had determined to be between 10 to 11 years. The court assessed whether this starting point was appropriate given the nature and extent of the applicant's criminal activities. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the relatively short period of offending and the mitigating factors of early pleas of guilty and rehabilitation. The court meticulously examined these arguments and weighed them against the severity of the crimes and the need to deter and punish such activities.

After a detailed analysis of the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case, the court determined that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offences, the role of the applicant in the drug trafficking business, and the mitigating factors presented. Consequently, the court upheld the sentence and dismissed the appeal, refusing the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is 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 GBP [2024] QCA 200
PARTIES:	R v GBP (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 260 of 2023 SC No 1469 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 8 December 2023 (Ryan J)
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 September 2024
JUDGES:	Bond and Brown JJA and Cooper J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of serious drug offences – where the applicant operated a sophisticated wholesale business of trafficking in cocaine and MDMA for profit – where the applicant engaged in trafficking for a period of just over five weeks, although the full extent of trafficking was unknown – where the learned trial judge found that the starting point for sentence was 10 to 11 years – whether her Honour’s starting point of 10 to 11 years for sentence caused the sentence to be manifestly excessive in light of the duration of offending, early pleas of guilty and evidence of rehabilitation R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183, cited R v Castner[2018] QCA 265, considered R v Corbett[2018] QCA 341, considered R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered R v McGinniss[2015] QCA 34, considered R v Nunn[2019] QCA 100, considered
COUNSEL:	D M Caruana for the applicant S L Dennis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Crawford Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent