R v Jeffs

[2005] QCA 35

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jeffs [2005] QCA 35

PARTIES:

R
v
JEFFS, Kevin John Patrick
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 422 of 2004
SC No 40 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2005

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J concurring as to the orders made, de Jersey CJ dissenting

ORDERS:

1.        Application for leave to appeal against sentence            granted
2.        Appeal allowed
3.        Vary sentence by recommending that the applicant            be considered for post-prison community-based            release after serving 18 months of his sentence

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful production of methylamphetamine and possession of materials in connection with production of such drug – where applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment with no recommendation for early release – where the applicant was not actually producing the drug and cooperated with authorities – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 103(1)(a)
Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 (Qld), sch 1

R v Boyd [2001] QCA 421; CA No 134 of 2001, 3 October 2001, distinguished
R v Campbell [2002] QCA 109; CA No 315 of 2001, 21 March 2001, considered
R v Martin [2002] QCA 513, CA No 269 of 2002, 21 November 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

T Moynihan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. de JERSEY CJ:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA.

1. The helpfulness of R v Boyd [2001] QCA 421, R v Campbell [2002] QCA 109 and R v Martin [2002] QCA 513 is reduced by the feature that the offending involved in those cases occurred when methylamphetamine was a sch 2 drug, whereas when the present applicant committed his offence, it was in sch 1. On the other hand, this applicant did not actually manufacture the drug, which was the case with those other offenders. But this applicant did a substantial amount of work obtaining the Sudafed tablets over a lengthy period, knowing the unlawful purpose for which they were to be utilized, and when it comes to the determination of penalty, the margin between his activity and that of the actual manufacturer should not in my view assume too great a significance. Additionally, his objective was some personal financial profit.

1. Particularly aggravating features of this case are that only four months before the applicant was arrested in respect of these offences, he received the warning constituted by the police discovery of the chemicals at his property in October 2003; and further that for…