R v Hodges - [2023] QCA 126

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hodges [2023] QCA 126

PARTIES:

R
v
HODGES, Brady Patrick
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 19 of 2023
DC No 575 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 9 February 2023 (Rackemann DCJ)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

14 June 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2023

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Morrison and Bond JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis (count 1), four counts of supply of dangerous drugs (counts 2-5) and one count of possessing a thing used in connection with the commission of the crime of trafficking in a dangerous drug (count 6) – where the applicant was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment for count 1, nine months’ imprisonment for each of counts 2 and 3, 12 months’ imprisonment for each of counts 4 and 5 and two months’ imprisonment for count 6 with a parole release date fixed after serving six months in custody – where during the trafficking period the applicant was 18 to 19 years old – where the applicant had no criminal history prior to the commencement of the trafficking and had two entries in his criminal history, including one for possessing 14 grams of cannabis, after the trafficking commenced – where the applicant trafficked in cannabis for approximately 16 months with a total amount of 269 grams of cannabis supplied to multiple customers – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Dowel; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2013] QCA 8, cited
R v Gair [2019] QCA 172, cited

R v Thearle [2012] QCA 42, cited

COUNSEL:

K Prskalo KC for the applicant
C N Marco for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MULLINS P: On 25 January 2023 Mr Hodges pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis between 15 September 2020 and 11 January 2022, four counts of supply of dangerous drugs and one count of possessing a thing (mobile phone) used in connection with the commission of the crime of trafficking in a dangerous drug. Mr Hodges was 18 to 19 years old during the trafficking period.
The sentencing took place on 9 February 2023. For the trafficking, Mr Hodges was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months. For each of the supply offences (counts 2 and 3), he was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and for each of the supply offences (counts 4 and 5), he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. For possessing the mobile phone, he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty to two related summary charges for which he was convicted and not otherwise punished. His…

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 Hodges

Details

AGLC: R v Hodges [2023] QCA 126
Case: [2023] QCA 126
Decision Date: 14 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hodges involved the applicant appealing against his sentence. The applicant had pleaded guilty to various drug-related offences, including trafficking in cannabis, multiple counts of supply of dangerous drugs, and possession of an item used in the commission of a drug crime. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that his age at the time of the offences, the duration of the trafficking period, and the relatively small amount of drugs involved, combined with his lack of prior criminal history, made the sentence excessively harsh. The court had to consider these factors alongside the principles of sentencing under the relevant legislation.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to the case, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. It considered the applicant's age, the relatively small amount of drugs involved, and the fact that this was his first significant criminal activity. However, the court also noted the duration of the trafficking period and the number of customers involved. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the sentence was appropriate and did not warrant interference. The applicant's appeal was thus refused, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused.

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 Hodges [2023] QCA 126
PARTIES:	R v HODGES, Brady Patrick (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 19 of 2023 DC No 575 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 9 February 2023 (Rackemann DCJ)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	14 June 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 June 2023
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Morrison and Bond JJA
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis (count 1), four counts of supply of dangerous drugs (counts 2-5) and one count of possessing a thing used in connection with the commission of the crime of trafficking in a dangerous drug (count 6) – where the applicant was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment for count 1, nine months’ imprisonment for each of counts 2 and 3, 12 months’ imprisonment for each of counts 4 and 5 and two months’ imprisonment for count 6 with a parole release date fixed after serving six months in custody – where during the trafficking period the applicant was 18 to 19 years old – where the applicant had no criminal history prior to the commencement of the trafficking and had two entries in his criminal history, including one for possessing 14 grams of cannabis, after the trafficking commenced – where the applicant trafficked in cannabis for approximately 16 months with a total amount of 269 grams of cannabis supplied to multiple customers – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Dowel; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2013] QCA 8, cited R v Gair [2019] QCA 172, cited R v Thearle [2012] QCA 42, cited
COUNSEL:	K Prskalo KC for the applicant C N Marco for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent