R v Grima - [2000] QCA 105

[R v GRIMA]
[2000] QCA 105
COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
THOMAS JA
ATKINSON J

CA No 429 of 1999

THE QUEEN

GERALD JOSEPH GRIMA Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 30/03/2000

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Atkinson will deliver her reasons first.

ATKINSON J: The applicant pleaded guilty on 25 November 1999 to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug as well as a summary charge of possession of a dangerous drug.

The first count related to trafficking in methylamphetamines between 31 January 1999 and 11 March 1999. The second count related to the possession of cannabis sativa on 24 March 1999 and the summary offence to possession of cannabis sativa on 5 June 1999.

The applicant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on count 1 and six months' imprisonment on count 2 and the summary charge. All sentences were made concurrent, a pecuniary penalty order was made for the sum of $15,200 and a forfeiture order for four mobile telephones and a set of scales.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of four years' imprisonment imposed for trafficking in a dangerous drug.

The circumstances of the trafficking offence were that police conducted an undercover drug operation, Operation Grenade, in the Mackay and Moranbah areas from July 1998 until March 1999.
Twenty-four people were arrested and five people including the applicant were charged with unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs.

Two covert police operatives were involved in a number of drug transactions with the applicant and others. They paid the applicant $15,200 for five drug deals in methylamphetamines over several weeks in Mackay.

The first transaction was on 1 February 1999 when the applicant was introduced to the cover police operatives. He sold the undercover agents 13.372 grams of white powder containing 4.279 grams of methylamphetamine being 32 per cent purity for a payment of $3,000. After the transaction the applicant said he always made the amphetamines a bit overweight.

The second transaction was on 10 February 1999. The applicant said that it was "good shit". A further 13.076 grams of white powder were sold for $3,000 to the police operatives. This powder contained 6.799 grams of methylamphetamine being 52 per cent pure.

The third transaction took place on 17 February 1999 when the applicant sold 12.884 grams of white powder to the agents for $3,000. The powder was 30.1 per cent pure and the weight of methylamphetamine was 3.878 grams. The applicant asked if they liked the quality of the previous drugs and said he could get more of the same.

The fourth transaction was on 3 March 1999 when the applicant sold a further 13.342 grams of white powder for the payment of $3,200. The powder contained 6.097 grams of methylamphetamine at a purity of 45.7 per cent. The applicant told the operatives that things might be a bit slow in Mackay because of all the police in town for the trials over the bikie shooting. He also said…

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 Grima

Details

AGLC: R v Grima [2000] QCA 105
Case: [2000] QCA 105
Decision Date: 30/03/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Grima, Gerald Joseph Grima pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug, possessing a dangerous drug, and a summary charge of possession of a dangerous drug. The trafficking charge involved the sale of methylamphetamines between January and March 1999, while the possession charges related to cannabis sativa found on two separate dates. The applicant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for trafficking, six months for the possession charges, with all sentences running concurrently, a pecuniary penalty of $15,200, and forfeiture of certain items. Grima sought leave to appeal against the four-year sentence for trafficking.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed for the trafficking offence was manifestly excessive. Grima's counsel argued that a more appropriate sentence would have been four years with a recommendation for parole after 15 months. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was within an appropriate range. The court examined the sentencing principles, including the need to consider the defendant's plea of guilty, personal circumstances, and the sentences imposed in similar cases. The court also referenced the case of The Queen v. Corrigan, which held that a recommendation for early release on parole was an ameliorating accompanying order that could reduce the sentence, but was not mandatory.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various factors in imposing the sentence. The court compared the sentence with those in similar cases and concluded that Grima's sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentencing judge had discretion to reduce the head sentence in light of the guilty plea rather than make a parole recommendation. The court noted that the sentence was comparable to that in The Queen v. Duggan, where a similar term of imprisonment was imposed for trafficking without a parole recommendation. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

The court's final order was that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders