R v Hinton

Case [2016] QCA 316

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hinton [2016] QCA 316

PARTIES:

R
v
HINTON, Dean Justin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 103 of 2016
SC No 168 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 29 February 2016

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 October 2016

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philip McMurdo JJA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was sentenced to an overall effective head sentence of nine years for one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and four counts of unlawfully supplying weapons – where the applicant was on parole for drugs and weapons offences when he committed the offences the subject of the present application – where the supply of drugs and weapons was for profit – where the applicant was not a drug addict at the time he committed the offences, having overcome a serious addiction to illicit drugs – where the applicant is a paraplegic and has other medical conditions – whether the sentences of imprisonment were manifestly excessive

R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, cited
R v Briggs [2012] QCA 291, cited
R v Carey [2015] QCA 51, cited
R v Gordon[2012] QCA 334, considered
R v Guthrie (2002) 135 A Crim R 292; [2002] QCA 509, considered
R v Scott, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Jackson J, 29 September 2014, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M T Whitbread for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. MORRISON JA:  I have read the reasons of Boddice J and agree with those reasons and the orders his Honour proposes.

  2. PHILIP McMURDO JA:  I agree with Boddice J.

  3. BODDICE J:  On 29 February 2016, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and four counts of unlawfully supplying weapons.  He was convicted and sentenced to eight years and 76 days imprisonment for trafficking in drugs and two years and six months imprisonment on the supply of weapon counts.  All terms of imprisonment were ordered to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon 289 days still required to be served in relation to an earlier sentence in respect of which the applicant was on parole at the time of the offences.  The applicant’s parole eligibility date was set at 28 February 2019, being three years from the date of commencement of his current incarceration.

  4. The applicant seeks leave to appeal those sentences of imprisonment on the basis that they were manifestly excessive.  At issue is whether the totality of the period required to…

Continue reading R v Hinton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hinton [2016] QCA 316
Case
[2016] QCA 316
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hinton, the applicant, who had a history of criminal conduct and was on parole for prior drug and weapons offences, sought leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment imposed for trafficking in dangerous drugs and unlawfully supplying weapons. The applicant argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive, taking into account his paraplegia, medical needs, and the hardship he would face in prison. The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in light of the applicant's criminality and personal circumstances, including the hardship he would endure in prison due to his medical conditions.

The court considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, his engagement in serious criminal behaviour while on parole, and the nature and extent of the offences committed. It also took into account the need for parity with co-offenders and the mitigating factors presented by the applicant's medical conditions. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive, representing a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion. The court found no error of principle in the exercise of the sentencing discretion and no basis to conclude there was an absence of parity between the applicant's sentences and those imposed on his co-offenders.

The court refused the applicant leave to appeal, finding that any appeal against sentence would be unsuccessful. It was determined that the sentences imposed on the applicant were appropriate and represented a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion, taking into account his criminality and personal circumstances.

Orders: Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

The applicant seeks leave to appeal those sentences of imprisonment on the basis that they were manifestly excessive. At issue is whether the totality of the period required to be served in custody exceeded what was appropriate having regard to his criminality and his personal circumstances including the hardship he would suffer in prison as a wheelchair bound prisoner with significant medical needs.Background The applicant was born on 12 January 1981. He was aged 31 to 32 years at the time of the commission of the offences. He was aged 35 years at sentence. He finished Grade 10 but left during Grade 11 as a consequence of disruptive behaviour. He then commenced labouring type employment. The applicant became a paraplegic as a consequence of a motor cycle accident in 2007. He required extensive post-operative recovery. He has been the recipient of a Disability Support Pension since that incident. He subsequently developed an adjustment disorder and an addiction to illicit drugs. The applicant has an extensive criminal history. He has been previously sentenced to community based orders, suspended sentences and actual periods of imprisonment. Relevantly, for present purposes, his past convictions include being sentenced on 28 July 2011 to an effective head sentence of two years imprisonment for various offences, including possessing schedule 1 drugs in a quantity of or exceeding schedule 3 but less than schedule 4 and two offences of unlawful possession of weapons. The applicant was ordered to be released on parole from that overall effective head sentence, after serving four months, namely 28 November 2011. The offences the subject of the present application were all committed whilst he was subject to that parole order.Offences The offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs concerned the trafficking in the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine, lysergide and gamma hydroxybutyric acid for a period of nine months from October 2012 to July 2013. That period commenced just short of 12 months into his parole period. The applicant’s trafficking involved being both a street level supplier and a wholesale supplier of drugs. He had not less than 21 customers, a number of whom had a large customer base to which they were on-supplying drugs obtained from the applicant. The applicant sold drugs in varying quantities, for significant profit. He used a co-offender, Jarred Scott, to recover drug debts. He supplied drugs to Scott on a daily basis, sometimes several times a day. He also supplied drugs to other co-offenders. The supply of weapon offences concerned the sourcing, modifying and on-selling of firearms to others for profit, or doing acts preparatory to the supply of such weapons. The weapons included a military weapon.Sentencing remarks The sentencing Judge noted the applicant’s pleas of guilty and that this co-operation had saved a long trial. The sentencing Judge also noted the need for parity with the applicant’s co-offenders. The sentencing Judge took into account that the applicant had not offended whilst on bail and that as a consequence of his paraplegia his time in custody would be more difficult and would affect his psychological state. The sentencing Judge also noted that as the offences had been committed whilst on parole, the applicant was required to serve any sentence imposed for the offences cumulatively on the sentences for which he had received parole.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Having regard to the state of the evidence before the sentencing Judge such observations were appropriate and addressed any concerns in relation to the adequate treatment of the applicant’s medical conditions in custody. Whilst those conditions will cause the applicant additional hardship to that experienced by other offenders without these conditions, the weight to be afforded to that consideration is less where, as here, the applicant engaged in this serious criminal behaviour while suffering those conditions.[4][4]R v Guthrie (2002) 135 A Crim R 292 at 300 [45]; R v Gordon [2012] QCA 334 at [39].Conclusions The sentences of imprisonment imposed on the applicant were not manifestly excessive. They represented a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion, having regard to the applicant’s overall criminality and allowing for his personal circumstances, including the hardship to him as a consequence of his paraplegia whilst subject to incarceration. No error of principle has been shown in the exercise of that discretion. There is also no basis to conclude there is an absence of parity between the applicant’s sentences and those imposed on his co-offender Scott. There is no basis upon which to properly grant leave to appeal. Any appeal against sentence would be unsuccessful.Orders I would order that leave to appeal be refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.