R v Hall - [2002] QCA 438

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hall [2002] QCA 438

PARTIES:

R
v
HALL, Barry William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 253 of 2002
SC No 52 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

17 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 October 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson JA and Cullinane and Holmes JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Vary the sentence on the production counts by
    substituting a sentence of two years imprisonment
    suspended after eight months with an operational
    period of three years
4. Reduce the sentence on the count of possession of
    instructions to eight months imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – GENERALLY – applicant sentenced to term of imprisonment for production of a dangerous drug and possessing instructions for producing a dangerous drug – applicant appeals against sentence imposed – whether learned sentencing judge erred in finding that the amount of drug produced was inconsistent with the recent taking up of amphetamine use – whether the learned sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s person circumstances at the time of the offence – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in concluding that the plea of guilty was a late plea

Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 157(2)

R v Pierpont [2001] QCA 493, CA No 211 of 2001, 13 November 2001, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

P D Kelly for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: I will ask Justice Holmes to give justice in this matter.

HOLMES J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in respect of one count of producing a dangerous drug and one count of possessing instructions for producing a dangerous drug. He pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court on the 8th August 2002.

In respect of the count of production he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment suspended after 12 months with an operational period of three years. In respect of the count of possession of instructions he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment to be served concurrently.

The two counts arose out of a police raid on the 23rd October 2000 on a unit rented by the applicant at Alexandra Headlands. The police found material associated with methylamphetamine production, precursor chemicals and laboratory equipment such as beakers and reaction flasks. In one of the vessels they found a substance which proved to contain 8.16 grams pure of methylamphetamine.

It was conceded by the Crown that the amounts of methylamphetamine and precursors found were not enough to suggest that the drug was produced by the…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [2002] QCA 438
Case: [2002] QCA 438
Decision Date: 17 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hall involved the appellant, who was convicted of producing a dangerous drug and possessing instructions for producing a dangerous drug. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge, arguing that there were errors in the judge's findings and conclusions. Specifically, the appellant contended that the judge erred in finding that the amount of drug produced was inconsistent with the recent commencement of amphetamine use, failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's personal circumstances at the time of the offence, and erred in concluding that the plea of guilty was a late plea.

The court considered the appellant's arguments and examined the sentencing principles and factors that should have been taken into account by the learned sentencing judge. The court found that the learned sentencing judge had indeed erred in several respects. Firstly, the court found that the amount of drug produced was not necessarily inconsistent with the recent commencement of amphetamine use, and the judge should have considered this possibility. Secondly, the court found that the learned sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's personal circumstances, which included his young age and his vulnerability to peer pressure. Finally, the court found that the learned sentencing judge erred in concluding that the plea of guilty was a late plea, as there was no evidence to support this conclusion.

As a result of these errors, the court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence on the production counts by substituting a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after eight months with an operational period of three years. The court also reduced the sentence on the count of possession of instructions to eight months imprisonment. The court granted leave to appeal and made orders accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Vary the sentence on the production counts by

substituting a sentence of two years imprisonment

suspended after eight months with an operational

period of three years

4. Reduce the sentence on the count of possession of

instructions to eight months imprisonment.

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 Hall [2002] QCA 438
PARTIES:	R v HALL, Barry William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 253 of 2002 SC No 52 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	17 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 October 2002
JUDGES:	McPherson JA and Cullinane and Holmes JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal granted 2. Appeal allowed 3. Vary the sentence on the production counts by substituting a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after eight months with an operational period of three years 4. Reduce the sentence on the count of possession of instructions to eight months imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – GENERALLY – applicant sentenced to term of imprisonment for production of a dangerous drug and possessing instructions for producing a dangerous drug – applicant appeals against sentence imposed – whether learned sentencing judge erred in finding that the amount of drug produced was inconsistent with the recent taking up of amphetamine use – whether the learned sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s person circumstances at the time of the offence – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in concluding that the plea of guilty was a late plea Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 157(2) R v Pierpont [2001] QCA 493, CA No 211 of 2001, 13 November 2001, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf P D Kelly for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent