R v Gordon

Case [2016] QCA 10


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gordon [2016] QCA 10

PARTIES:

R
v
GORDON, Stuart Raymond McFarlan
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 84 of 2015
SC No 815 of 2014
SC No 817 of 2014
SC No 175 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 1 May 2015

DELIVERED ON:

5 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 September 2015

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 numerous offences, including unlawful trafficking in cannabis and methylamphetamine – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 14 counts on Indictment 815 of 2014, one count on Indictment 817 of 2014, and a summary charge on 1 May 2015 at the Supreme Court at Brisbane – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment on Count 1, ten years’ imprisonment and a serious violent declaration was made on Count 2, and two years’ imprisonment on Count 3 – where the applicant was not punished for Counts 4 to 14 – where the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal sentence – where the sole ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive – where it was contended that the learned sentencing judge failed to place sufficient weight on one, or more in combination of the applicants age at the time of his offending, the absence of violence in the applicant’s offending, and an absence of an extravagant lifestyle or accumulation of assets reflective of a lack of business sophistication on the part of the applicant – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 1992 (Qld), s 182
Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth), s 9(1)(a)
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered
R v Galeano [2013] 2 Qd R 464; [2013] QCA 51, distinguished
R v Rodd; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2008] QCA 341, considered

COUNSEL:

D H James for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lawler Magill for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

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

  2. GOTTERSON JA:  On 1 May 2015, the applicant, Stuart Raymond McFarlan Gordon, pleaded guilty to 14 counts on Indictment 815 of 2014,[1] one count on Indictment 817 of 2014,[2] and a summary charge. Counts 1 and 2 on the multi-count indictment alleged unlawful trafficking in cannabis and methylamphetamine respectively during the period 31 July 2009 to 8…

Continue reading R v Gordon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Gordon [2016] QCA 10
Case
[2016] QCA 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gordon involved the applicant who had pleaded guilty to a series of serious drug-related offences, including unlawful trafficking in cannabis and methylamphetamine. The applicant entered his pleas in the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 1 May 2015, facing 14 counts on Indictment 815 of 2014, one count on Indictment 817 of 2014, and a summary charge. The sentencing resulted in the applicant being given eight years' imprisonment for the first count, ten years' imprisonment with a serious violent declaration for the second count, and two years' imprisonment for the third count. The remaining counts were not punished. The applicant subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The grounds for appeal specifically included the argument that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the applicant’s age, the non-violent nature of the offending, and the lack of an extravagant lifestyle or significant assets that would indicate sophisticated criminal business acumen.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the arguments presented by the applicant regarding the sentencing judge’s failure to adequately weigh certain mitigating factors. The court had to evaluate the balance struck by the sentencing judge between the severity of the offences and the mitigating factors, and determine if the sentence deviated markedly from the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

The court carefully examined the sentencing remarks and the overall circumstances of the case, including the nature and extent of the applicant's involvement in drug trafficking. It considered the severity of the offences, the quantities of drugs involved, and the applicant's criminal history. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors presented and had exercised sound judicial discretion in imposing the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and thus dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused, upholding the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court at Brisbane.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.