R v Griffiths - [2003] QCA 79

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Griffiths [2003] QCA 79

PARTIES:

R
v
GRIFFITHS, Terrence Clifford
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 348 of 2002
SC No 66 of 2002
SC No 396 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal allowed.   Appeal allowed.

Sentences imposed on 11 October 2002 set aside and the following sentences substituted in lieu thereof, all of which are to be served concurrently:

      On indictment 66 of 2002

(a) Counts 1 and 2:3 years imprisonment suspended on and from 11 April 2003 with an operational period of 4 years;

(b)Counts 3 to 6:12 months imprisonment;

It is directed in respect of each count that 236 days, from 3 December 1999 to 3 July 2000 and from 8 July 2000 to 30 July 2000 be taken into account as time already served.

     On indictment 396 of 2002

Counts 1 and 3:18 months imprisonment; (a)

Counts 2 and 4:2 ½ years imprisonment; (b)

in each case suspended on and from 11 April 2003 with an operational period of 3 years;

It is directed that in respect of each count 236 days from 3 December 1999 to 3 July 2000 and from 8 July 2000 to 30 July 2000 be taken into account as time already served.

      On indictment 295 of 1999

(a) It is ordered that the offender serve 6 months    of the suspended imprisonment ordered on 15 July 1999.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant sentenced to multiple drug offences including possession and production of methylamphetamine for personal use and possession of things used in connection with production – where offences involved breach of a suspended sentence – where whole of suspended sentence was activated and sentence of 4 ½ years imprisonment also imposed – where applicant was held in custody for those offences – where applicant released from custody under the belief that the charges would not be proceeded with – where charges were reactivated 18 months later – where applicant had rehabilitated himself during that period – whether sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 146, s 147, s 154(a)

R v Denton [1999] QCA 343; CA No 168 of 1999, 20 August 1999, followed
R v Law; ex parte Attorney General (1996) 2 Qd R 63, applied

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bernard Bradley & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with…

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 [2003] QCA 79
Case: [2003] QCA 79
Decision Date: 7 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Griffiths, was convicted of multiple drug offences, including possession and production of methylamphetamine for personal use and possession of items used in connection with production. The offences involved a breach of a suspended sentence, leading to the activation of the entire suspended sentence and the imposition of an additional four and a half years of imprisonment. Griffiths was held in custody for these offences but was later released under the impression that the charges would not proceed. Eighteen months later, the charges were reactivated. Griffiths had rehabilitated himself during this period. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

The court considered the principle that a sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence, the offender, and the circumstances. It also examined the principle of proportionality, which requires that the punishment should fit the crime. The court noted Griffiths' rehabilitation during the period when he believed the charges would not proceed and the activation of charges after this period. It found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive given these circumstances. The court substituted the sentences to reflect the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the sentences imposed on 11 October 2002. New sentences were substituted, all to be served concurrently. Specific directions were given for the operational periods and the time already served to be taken into account. The court ordered that Griffiths serve six months of the suspended imprisonment ordered on 15 July 1999. This decision underscores the importance of considering rehabilitation and proportionality in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal allowed. Appeal allowed.

Sentences imposed on 11 October 2002 set aside and the following sentences substituted in lieu thereof, all of which are to be served concurrently:

On indictment 66 of 2002

(a) Counts 1 and 2:3 years imprisonment suspended on and from 11 April 2003 with an operational period of 4 years;

(b)Counts 3 to 6:12 months imprisonment;

It is directed in respect of each count that 236 days, from 3 December 1999 to 3 July 2000 and from 8 July 2000 to 30 July 2000 be taken into account as time already served.

On indictment 396 of 2002

Counts 1 and 3:18 months imprisonment; (a)

Counts 2 and 4:2 ½ years imprisonment; (b)

in each case suspended on and from 11 April 2003 with an operational period of 3 years;

It is directed that in respect of each count 236 days from 3 December 1999 to 3 July 2000 and from 8 July 2000 to 30 July 2000 be taken into account as time already served.

On indictment 295 of 1999

(a) It is ordered that the offender serve 6 months of the suspended imprisonment ordered on 15 July 1999.

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 [2003] QCA 79
PARTIES:	R v GRIFFITHS, Terrence Clifford (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 348 of 2002 SC No 66 of 2002 SC No 396 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 March 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Application for leave to appeal allowed. Appeal allowed. Sentences imposed on 11 October 2002 set aside and the following sentences substituted in lieu thereof, all of which are to be served concurrently: On indictment 66 of 2002 (a) Counts 1 and 2:3 years imprisonment suspended on and from 11 April 2003 with an operational period of 4 years; (b)Counts 3 to 6:12 months imprisonment; It is directed in respect of each count that 236 days, from 3 December 1999 to 3 July 2000 and from 8 July 2000 to 30 July 2000 be taken into account as time already served. On indictment 396 of 2002 Counts 1 and 3:18 months imprisonment; (a) Counts 2 and 4:2 ½ years imprisonment; (b) in each case suspended on and from 11 April 2003 with an operational period of 3 years; It is directed that in respect of each count 236 days from 3 December 1999 to 3 July 2000 and from 8 July 2000 to 30 July 2000 be taken into account as time already served. On indictment 295 of 1999 (a) It is ordered that the offender serve 6 months of the suspended imprisonment ordered on 15 July 1999.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where applicant sentenced to multiple drug offences including possession and production of methylamphetamine for personal use and possession of things used in connection with production – where offences involved breach of a suspended sentence – where whole of suspended sentence was activated and sentence of 4 ½ years imprisonment also imposed – where applicant was held in custody for those offences – where applicant released from custody under the belief that the charges would not be proceeded with – where charges were reactivated 18 months later – where applicant had rehabilitated himself during that period – whether sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 146, s 147, s 154(a) R v Denton [1999] QCA 343; CA No 168 of 1999, 20 August 1999, followed R v Law; ex parte Attorney General (1996) 2 Qd R 63, applied
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bernard Bradley & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent