R v Hyde - [2002] QCA 72

[2002] QCA 72

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
MUIR J
PHILIPPIDES J

CA No 319 of 2001

THE QUEEN

MATTHEW ROBERT ARTHUR HYDE Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/03/2002

JUDGMENT

PHILIPPIDES J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant upon his plea of guilty to a number of drug offences. The sentence imposed was one of nine years' imprisonment and in addition an order was made that a suspended sentence of three years be activated to run concurrently with the sentence.

The offences in question involved one count of trafficking in heroin during the period 30 September 2000 to 31 January 2001. In addition the following summary offences were also dealt with: one count of possession of heroin and cannabis sativa, one count of possession of property used in connection with the commission of an offence, one count of possession of a thing used in connection with a dangerous drug, namely a water pipe, and one count of possession of tainted property.

It appears that the circumstances of the offence of trafficking and heroin were that the applicant had been under surveillance which indicated that he was involved in selling various amounts of heroin. During September 2000 and January 2001 the applicant sold varying amounts of heroin to an undercover police officer on seven occasions for a total sum of $14,350. The undercover police officer represented herself as a dealer. The amount sold to her was reflective of that. A total of 59.612 grams of powder containing 29.96 grams of heroin at an average percentage of 50.26 per cent was involved.

Whilst under surveillance the applicant was seen driving around and meeting a number of other people for short periods of time on several different occasions. Indeed it was conceded that the sales to the undercover police officer were not the only sales made by the applicant. He also told the undercover officer that he had purchased a car from the proceeds of the drug sales and that he normally picked up a quarter ounce of heroin a day.

The applicant had a prior criminal history. Of particular relevance was the applicant's conviction on 11 February 1988 of dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment suspended after six months for an operational period of three years. The current offences were committed towards the end of the operational period of the suspended sentence.

In imposing the sentence, the learned sentencing Judge took into account the applicant's early plea of guilty, the fact that the applicant was remorseful, the fact that the applicant had taken steps to cure himself of his addiction and the fact that the applicant had a supportive family. His Honour took into account psychological and other reports which indicated that the applicant was to some extent vulnerable.

His Honour accepted that the applicant was supporting his own addiction, in addition to selling heroin with a commercial element, and that the applicant was…

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 Hyde

Details

AGLC: R v Hyde [2002] QCA 72
Case: [2002] QCA 72
Decision Date: 13/03/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hyde involved an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant for drug offences. The applicant had pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin and several summary offences related to drug possession and use. The sentence imposed was nine years' imprisonment, with a concurrent activation of a suspended sentence of three years for a previous offence. The appeal focused on the appropriateness of the sentence given the mitigating factors and the severity of the current offences. The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or if the mitigating factors warranted a lesser sentence.

The primary legal issues involved the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the mitigating factors and the comparison with similar cases. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive, given his early guilty plea, remorse, and efforts to rehabilitate. The court needed to weigh these mitigating factors against the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence and the breach of a suspended sentence. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence imposed was within the range of what could be considered reasonable, given the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors, such as the applicant's early plea of guilty and remorse. However, the court also recognised the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence and the breach of the suspended sentence. The Court noted that the sentence of nine years' imprisonment, without parole, was within the range of what could be considered appropriate for such offences, especially given the breach of the suspended sentence. The court found no error in the sentencing process that would warrant an appeal.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was upheld. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and did not represent an abuse of the court's discretion.

Orders