R v Griffiths - [2009] QCA 13

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Griffiths [2009] QCA 13

PARTIES:

R
v
GRIFFITHS, Rikki Leith
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 289 of 2008
SC No 400 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2009

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Muir JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Muir JA and Atkinson J concurring as to the orders made, de Jersey CJ dissenting.

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   The sentence under appeal be varied by substituting “11 November 2008”, the date on which the applicant was granted bail, for “5 March 2009” as the applicant’s parole release date.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at four months imposed after a plea of guilty for an offence of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine in a quantity exceeding two grams – where the applicant suffered from generalised anxiety and major depressive disorders – where applicant assisted the preservation of a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine upon discovering it in her dwelling – where the applicant had no commercial purpose in her dealing with the drug – whether insufficient weight was given to the circumstances of the applicant and to those of the offence – whether too much weight was given to the activities of others and not enough to the applicant's fear and panic in explaining her actions – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

R v Hesketh; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2004] QCA 116, distinguished

R v Tabe[2004] QCA 17, considered

COUNSEL:

D T Locantro (sol) for the applicant/appellant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Locantro Lawyers for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Muir JA.

Having regard to the applicant’s preservation of such a substantial quantity of the Schedule 1 drug methylamphetime, I do not consider that her personal circumstances, to which Muir JA refers, constrained the sentencing Judge not to require the applicant to serve a comparatively short term of actual incarceration. The need for general deterrence especially, justified the course taken by Her Honour, such that the penalty imposed should not in my view be regarded as manifestly excessive.

I would refuse the application.

MUIR JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at four months imposed in the Supreme Court after a plea of guilty for an offence of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine in a quantity exceeding two grams. The grounds of appeal are that: the sentence was manifestly excessive; insufficient weight was given to…

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 Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [2009] QCA 13
Case: [2009] QCA 13
Decision Date: 13 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Griffiths involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant following a guilty plea to unlawful possession of methylamphetamine in a quantity exceeding two grams. The applicant, who had a history of generalised anxiety and major depressive disorders, was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date of four months. The applicant had not only assisted in preserving a substantial quantity of the drug but had also acted without any commercial intent. The appeal contested whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the personal circumstances of the applicant and the non-commercial nature of her involvement with the drug.

The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was excessively disproportionate to the crime, whether the personal circumstances and the non-commercial intent of the applicant were adequately weighed, and whether there was a proper balance in considering the applicant's fear and panic at the time of the offence against the actions of others. The appeal hinged on whether the original sentence sufficiently accounted for these factors.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, primarily because insufficient weight had been given to the applicant's personal circumstances and the non-commercial nature of her involvement with the drug. The court noted that the applicant's fear and panic were significant factors that warranted more consideration in the sentencing process. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, varying the sentence by substituting the applicant’s parole release date with the date she was granted bail, which was 11 November 2008.

The orders of the court were to grant the application for leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and vary the sentence by setting the parole release date as 11 November 2008. This decision underscores the importance of considering personal circumstances and non-commercial intent when determining the appropriate sentence in cases of drug possession.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The sentence under appeal be varied by substituting “11 November 2008”, the date on which the applicant was granted bail, for “5 March 2009” as the applicant’s parole release date.

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 Griffiths [2009] QCA 13
PARTIES:	R v GRIFFITHS, Rikki Leith (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 289 of 2008 SC No 400 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2009
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Muir JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Muir JA and Atkinson J concurring as to the orders made, de Jersey CJ dissenting.
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. The sentence under appeal be varied by substituting “11 November 2008”, the date on which the applicant was granted bail, for “5 March 2009” as the applicant’s parole release date.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where a sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a parole release date fixed at four months imposed after a plea of guilty for an offence of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine in a quantity exceeding two grams – where the applicant suffered from generalised anxiety and major depressive disorders – where applicant assisted the preservation of a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine upon discovering it in her dwelling – where the applicant had no commercial purpose in her dealing with the drug – whether insufficient weight was given to the circumstances of the applicant and to those of the offence – whether too much weight was given to the activities of others and not enough to the applicant's fear and panic in explaining her actions – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. R v Hesketh; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2004] QCA 116, distinguished R v Tabe[2004] QCA 17, considered
COUNSEL:	D T Locantro (sol) for the applicant/appellant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Locantro Lawyers for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents