R v Johnson

Case [2014] QCA 79

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Johnson [2014] QCA 79

PARTIES:

R
v
JOHNSON, Dean James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 226 of 2013
SC No 226 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application to adduce further evidence refused.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – IN GENERAL – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, possession of dangerous drugs and possession of things used in connection with trafficking in dangerous drugs – where at sentence the applicant's solicitor advocate submitted that the applicant was not addicted to drugs – where the applicant seeks to give and call new evidence to establish that he was drug dependent at the time of the offending – whether the application to adduce further evidence should be granted

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – FRESH EVIDENCE AND EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER SENTENCE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to drug offences – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment – where at sentence the applicant's solicitor advocate submitted that the applicant was not addicted to drugs – where the applicant submits that had the sentencing judge been aware of the extent and length of the applicant's drug addiction a sentence of less than 10 years imprisonment would have been imposed – whether a lesser sentence would have been imposed had the sentencing judge been aware of the applicant's drug addiction at the time of his offending

R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, cited
R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183, cited
R v Elizalde[2006] QCA 330, cited
R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered
R v Kalaja[2012] QCA 329, cited
R v Kashton[2005] QCA 70, cited
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited
R v Markovski[2009] QCA 299, cited
R v O'Shea[2011] QCA 18, cited
R v Raciti[2004] QCA 359, cited
R v Rodd; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2008] QCA 341, cited
R v Westphal[2009] QCA 223, considered

COUNSEL:

A Glynn QC for the applicant
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robertson O'Gorman for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant pleaded guilty on 29 August 2013 to trafficking in dangerous drugs between November 2011 and July 2012 (count 1); unlawful possession of methylamphetamine and cocaine on 26 July 2012 (count 2) and possession of things used in connection with trafficking in dangerous drugs…

Continue reading R v Johnson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Johnson [2014] QCA 79
Case
[2014] QCA 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnson involves an appeal against sentence by the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of things used in connection with drug trafficking. The applicant, having initially pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. At the sentencing, the applicant's solicitor advocate had submitted that the applicant was not addicted to drugs. Post-sentencing, the applicant seeks to present and call new evidence to demonstrate that they were drug dependent at the time of their offending. The legal issues revolve around whether the application to adduce further evidence should be granted and whether a lesser sentence would have been imposed if the sentencing judge had been aware of the applicant's drug addiction.

The court examined whether the application to adduce further evidence was justified, focusing on the principles governing the admission of such evidence in appeals against sentence. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge would have imposed a different sentence had they been aware of the applicant's drug addiction at the time of the offending. The applicant argued that had the sentencing judge been aware of the extent and length of the applicant's drug addiction, a sentence of less than 10 years imprisonment would have been imposed. The court found that the application to adduce further evidence did not meet the necessary criteria for admission, and the applicant's submissions did not establish a compelling reason to interfere with the sentence imposed.

The court concluded that the application to adduce further evidence was refused, as it did not satisfy the necessary criteria for admissibility. Additionally, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused. The court found that the evidence presented did not provide a compelling reason to reconsider the sentence imposed, and the principles governing appeals against sentence did not support a reduction in the sentence.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application to adduce further evidence and to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court maintained that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment was appropriate and did not require alteration based on the evidence presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to adduce further evidence refused.

2. 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.