R v Joiner - [2025] QCA 28

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Joiner [2025] QCA 28

PARTIES:

R
v
JOINER, Keli Christopher
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 244 of 2024
SC No 481 of 2024
SC No 761 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 22 October 2024 (Sullivan J)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 14 March 2025
Date of Publication of Reasons: 18 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 March 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Bradley and Crowley JJ

ORDER:

Date of Order: 14 March 2025

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a thing used in connection with trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the applicant pleaded guilty to four summary offences – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months, suspended after ten months, with an operational period of three years and six months, for the trafficking offence – whether the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of discretion in sentencing the applicant – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 92(1)(b)

R v Oldfield[2004] QCA 435, cited
R v Staines (2022) 11 QR 872; [2022] QCA 187, considered

COUNSEL:

D J Walsh for the applicant
J D Finch for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Guest Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 14 March 2025, the Court refused an application for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the learned sentencing judge for the offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs and possessing tainted property. The following are the reasons leave was refused.
On 22 October 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine and gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) between 9 June 2022 and 13 May 2023, and to possessing tainted property in the form of a bankcard, personal digital assistant table, and car keys.[1]
[1]The applicant also pleaded guilty to possessing a mobile phone that he had used in connection with the trafficking, and to four additional summary offences. For each he was convicted, but not further punished. For obvious reasons, he did not seek to challenge those sentences.
For the trafficking offence, the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for three years and six months, suspended after ten months, with an operational period of three years and six months. For the possession of tainted property, charged as a summary offence, the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for ten months with an order that he then be released under supervision of an authorised Corrective Services officer for a period of two years, pursuant to s 92(1)(b) of the Penalties and…

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 Joiner

Details

AGLC: R v Joiner [2025] QCA 28
Case: [2025] QCA 28
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Joiner, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug and possessing a thing used in connection with trafficking in dangerous drugs, as well as four summary offences, was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months, suspended after ten months, with an operational period of three years and six months for the trafficking offence. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in the exercise of discretion in sentencing the applicant. Specifically, the court had to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate in all the circumstances. The applicant contended that the sentence was excessively harsh and that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the sentence imposed was reasonable and not plainly unjust. It was noted that a sentence of imprisonment for three to five years is within the sound exercise of sentencing discretion for offenders convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine, even at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. The applicant had been afforded additional amelioration in the sentences, with the trafficking sentence being suspended after ten months in custody. The court held that the sentence imposed was reasonable and did not indicate any error on the part of the sentencing judge. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The court's decision was based on the principle that a sentence within the range of three to five years is acceptable for trafficking in methylamphetamine, and the court found that the sentence imposed in this case was within that range. The court also noted that the applicant had been granted additional leniency by having the sentence suspended after ten months. The court concluded that the sentence was reasonable and not manifestly excessive, and therefore denied the applicant leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 14 March 2025

The application for leave to appeal is 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

As to the two decisions of this Court noted in the parties’ written submissions, his Honour said:“I was taken to the authorities by counsel for the DPP in relation to trafficking matters. I accept the guideposts that he identified in his submissions. In my view, the appropriate head sentence is at the three and a-half year mark on the trafficking count. This is largely due to the fact of the lack of evidence of a real intensity and the fact that you were a drug addict dealing at street level.”Consideration of the proposed ground(s) of appeal For at least 20 years,[2] it has been the settled view of this Court that a sentence of imprisonment for three to five years is within the sound exercise of sentencing discretion for offenders convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine, even at the lower end of the scale of seriousness.[2]R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435; cited with approval in R v Scott [2006] QCA 76. The sentence imposed for the applicant’s offending was of this order. The applicant was afforded additional amelioration in the sentences, by suspending the trafficking sentence after ten months in custody, i.e. after less than a quarter of the head sentence will have been served. The prison-probation sentence on the summary charge was fixed to transition the applicant from custody to the community at the same point in time. The sentence imposed is reasonable. It is not plainly unjust. We would not infer from the sentence that the sentencing judge’s discretion miscarried. As was noted in the course of argument of the appeal, it is conceivable that a sentencing judge might have imposed the sentence for which it appears the applicant would contend, if granted leave to appeal, namely three years’ imprisonment. It is possible, depending upon an assessment of the applicant’s circumstances, that such a sentence might have been suspended after six months in custody. That would be a light sentence for the applicant’s trafficking offence. This observation in no way indicates an error on the part of the sentencing judge. Nor was there any error in the limited consideration the sentencing judge gave to this Court’s decision in Staines. The case was not identified as establishing any point of principle that his Honour was bound to follow or apply. His Honour did not act on it as if he were so bound. It was simply a yardstick against which the sentencing judge could examine a possible sentence, given the identified facts of that case and the similarities and differences between it and the applicant’s offending and relevant circumstances. Such an examination could not reveal any error in the exercise of discretion his Honour undertook in sentencing the applicant.

CITATION:	R v Joiner [2025] QCA 28
PARTIES:	R v JOINER, Keli Christopher (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 244 of 2024 SC No 481 of 2024 SC No 761 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 22 October 2024 (Sullivan J)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 14 March 2025 Date of Publication of Reasons: 18 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 March 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Bradley and Crowley JJ
ORDER:	Date of Order: 14 March 2025 The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a thing used in connection with trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the applicant pleaded guilty to four summary offences – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months, suspended after ten months, with an operational period of three years and six months, for the trafficking offence – whether the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of discretion in sentencing the applicant – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 92(1)(b) R v Oldfield[2004] QCA 435, cited R v Staines (2022) 11 QR 872; [2022] QCA 187, considered
COUNSEL:	D J Walsh for the applicant J D Finch for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Guest Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent