R v Heilbronn

[2017] QCA 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Heilbronn [2017] QCA 21

PARTIES:

R
v
HEILBRONN, Peter Andrew
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 117 of 2016
SC No 16 of 2016
SC No 24 of 2016
SC No 47 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 7 April 2016; Date of Sentence: 13 April 2016

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philip McMurdo JJA and Henry J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – PUBLICITY – where the offender was charged with the production and trafficking of methylamphetamine and cannabis – where a news article was broadcast during the trial showing the appellant leaving the watch-house and attempting to cover his face – where the broadcast included information about the scale of the police operation and disclosed that the appellant was presently in custody – where the broadcast included a picture of four blocks of methylamphetamine which had been seized – where the case was long and there would be substantial inconvenience in discharging the jury – where the judge directed the jury in clear terms not to take the broadcast into consideration – whether the broadcast was sufficiently prejudicial that the refusal to discharge the jury caused a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS – where the offender was charged with the production and trafficking of methylamphetamine and cannabis – where the trafficking was a sophisticated operation which earned significant profit – where the trafficking in cannabis constituted the bulk of the operation – where the offender was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment with the necessary consequence of a serious violent offence declaration – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22, cited
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited

COUNSEL:

N Weston for the appellant/applicant
M R Byrne QC, with N W Crane, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philip McMurdo JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.

2. PHILIP McMURDO JA:  After a 17 day trial the appellant was convicted of the following offences:

   (1)trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely cannabis and methylamphetamine, over approximately seven months in 2011;

   (2)producing methylamphetamine in June 2011;

   (3)producing cannabis during the period of his trafficking offence; and

   (4)possessing cannabis in October 2011.

3. For the offence of…