R v Jackson - [2003] QCA 31

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jackson [2003] QCA 31

PARTIES:

R
v
JACKSON, Peter Fancher
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 270 of 2002
SC No 254 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of importing into Australia commercial quantity of cocaine – where applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years – where trial judge found applicant expressed no remorse – where applicant of advanced age – whether sentencing discretion ought to have taken more account of these factors

COUNSEL:

P J Callaghan for the applicant
G R Rice for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Cullinane J and with the order he proposes.

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Cullinane J; I agree with them and do not need to add anything. I agree that the application should be refused.

CULLINANE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him for bringing into Australia prohibited imports, namely a commercial quantity of cocaine. The applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years with a non-parole period fixed at 13 years.

The applicant was born on 14 June 1942 and was 60 when sentence was passed.

The quantity of drugs seized was some 89.1kg contained in 99 packages. The cocaine was 70 per cent pure.

The learned sentencing judge was informed that the quantity of cocaine found was the greatest ever seized in Queensland. The drugs had a retail value of some $25 million and wholesale value of about $13-14 million.

The drugs had been exported from Mexico via Noumea to Australia. The exercise commenced about one year prior to the raid by the police on the vessel on which they were found in Moreton Bay.

The applicant played a central role in the planning and commission of the offence. He supplied the vessel, provided some of the finances and arranged for the crew which included his 16 year old son. His reward was to be a payment of $800,000.

Two others were to obtain whatever profits were produced from the sale of the cocaine.

His Honour, in sentencing the applicant, described his role as being that of a member, with two others, of an organising committee.

In sentencing him, his Honour referred to two particular features of the offence as revealing the character of the crime committed by the applicant. The first was the involvement of the applicant's 16 year old son in the enterprise…

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 Jackson

Details

AGLC: R v Jackson [2003] QCA 31
Case: [2003] QCA 31
Decision Date: 14 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Jackson, the applicant was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of cocaine into Australia. Following his conviction, the trial judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 25 years. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the severity of this sentence, arguing that the trial judge did not adequately consider certain mitigating factors in determining the appropriate punishment. These factors included the applicant's advanced age and his lack of expressed remorse.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had failed to properly exercise their sentencing discretion by not sufficiently weighing the mitigating factors of the applicant's age and lack of remorse. The applicant contended that these factors should have led to a lesser sentence, given the principles of proportionality and the rehabilitative potential of sentencing. The Crown argued that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors, and that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the importance of proportionality and the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender. It examined the trial judge's reasoning and concluded that the judge had indeed considered the mitigating factors but had determined that the aggravating factors, such as the scale of the offence and the applicant's criminal history, warranted a lengthy sentence. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in their exercise of discretion and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances. Accordingly, the court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Jackson [2003] QCA 31
PARTIES:	R v JACKSON, Peter Fancher (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 270 of 2002 SC No 254 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2003
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of importing into Australia commercial quantity of cocaine – where applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years – where trial judge found applicant expressed no remorse – where applicant of advanced age – whether sentencing discretion ought to have taken more account of these factors
COUNSEL:	P J Callaghan for the applicant G R Rice for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent