Williams and Keane JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:
Application refused
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 – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant sentenced to eight years imprisonment for trafficking in methylamphetamine – where applicant eligible for parole after serving two years and eight months actual imprisonment – whether sufficient weight given to applicant's cooperation – whether sentence manifestly excessive
A W Moynihan SC for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Justice Keane to give his reasons
first.
KEANE JA: On 28 March 2007, the applicant was convicted on his own plea of one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine, one count of possessing a quantity of methylamphetamine exceeding two grams and one count of possessing things used in connection with trafficking. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on the trafficking count, with 1 July 2009 being fixed as the parole eligibility date. A period of pre-sentence custody of 148 days was declared to be time already served. On the other counts the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of one year's imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence for the trafficking count and the day of sentence was fixed as the parole release date. The applicant also pleaded guilty in respect of a number of other offences for which a conviction was recorded and the applicant was not further punished. Thus the applicant was effectively sentenced to two years and eight months imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.
As to the circumstances of the offence, on 8 September 2005, police searched the applicant's residence in Mount Isa where they found 190 grams of powder containing 22.659 grams of pure methylamphetamine. The applicant told police that he had purchased the drugs for $50,000 and expected to sell it in a week to about 50 clients, including 12 regulars, at a profit to himself of about $1,000 per ounce, that is…
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 Ikin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Ikin [2007] QCA 224
Case
[2007] QCA 224
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Ikin involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant who had been convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine. The applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. The applicant was eligible for parole after serving two years and eight months of actual imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to their cooperation with law enforcement and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the applicant's cooperation and whether the sentence was excessive. The court needed to examine the extent to which the applicant's cooperation was acknowledged in the sentencing process and whether it warranted a lesser sentence. Additionally, the court assessed whether the sentence was disproportionately severe in light of the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing.
The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed considered the applicant's cooperation, and the weight given to this factor was appropriate. The court further determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It was held that the sentencing judge had balanced the various considerations, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and retribution, in arriving at the sentence. The court was satisfied that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate under the circumstances.
The application to reduce the sentence was refused.