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 2015DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 1 May 2015DELIVERED 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 madeORDER:
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 161AHouse 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, consideredCOUNSEL:
D H James for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Lawler Magill for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
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
- AGLC
- R v Gordon [2016] QCA 10
- Case
- [2016] QCA 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.