R v JZ

Case [2017] QCA 65


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v JZ [2017] QCA 65

PARTIES:

R
v
JZ
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 367 of 2016
SC No 1522 of 2016
SC No 856 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 December 2016

DELIVERED ON:

18 April 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Douglas J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The application 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 trafficking in methylamphetamine over an 18 month period and six other drug related offences, including producing methylamphetamine, possession of a weapon and possession of various dangerous drugs – where the applicant was sentenced to six years for the drug trafficking offence and two years or less for each of the other indictable offences, served concurrently – where the applicant also pleaded guilty to 13 summary charges including driving without a licence whilst disqualified by a court order – where the applicant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of four years – where the sentencing judge took into account the other summary offences in sentencing the indictable offences, but no further penalty was imposed – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge made errors of fact in the sentencing remarks – where the applicant disputes an inference of the sentencing judge that the appellant’s traffic history showed a “complete disregard of the law” – where the applicant argues that the danger to which he has been exposed by his willingness to cooperate with authorities was not taken into account by the sentencing judge – where the applicant’s trial counsel had broadly agreed with the sentence which was eventually imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Gladkowski (2000) 115 A Crim R 446, [2000] QCA 352, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. THE COURT:  The applicant pleaded guilty to the following charges:

    Count 1    - Trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely methylamphetamines;

    Count 2    - Producing a dangerous drug, namely methylamphetamine;

    Count 3    - Possession of a category R weapon, namely a stun grenade;

    Count 9- Possession of a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine in a quantity exceeding 2g;

    Count 10- Possession of a dangerous drug, namely 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine;

    Count 11  -          Possession of a dangerous drug, namely heroin;

    Count 12  - Possession of a dangerous drug, namely cannabis.

  2. The applicant also pleaded guilty to 13 summary charges which it is not necessary to set out in detail; they concerned possession of property suspected of being the proceeds of an offence under the Drugs Misuse Act, several counts of possession of dangerous drugs or controlled or…

Continue reading R v JZ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v JZ [2017] QCA 65
Case
[2017] QCA 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v JZ involves an appeal against a sentence imposed by the sentencing judge following the applicant’s guilty pleas to multiple drug-related offences and summary charges. The applicant, JZ, was found guilty of trafficking in methylamphetamine over an 18-month period, producing methylamphetamine, possession of a weapon, possession of dangerous drugs, and multiple summary charges including driving without a licence while disqualified. The sentencing judge imposed a six-year sentence for the drug trafficking offence, and concurrent sentences of two years or less for each of the other indictable offences, and a four-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence. JZ contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to alleged errors of fact and omissions by the sentencing judge, and that the judge’s inference of a complete disregard for the law was not supported by the evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. This involved assessing the sentence in light of the gravity of the offences, the applicant’s criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court needed to determine whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the law and whether any errors or omissions warranted interference with the sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence reflected the true circumstances of the case, including the applicant’s cooperation with authorities and the potential danger he faced as a result.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentence, including the summary offences, the nature and extent of the indictable offences, and the applicant’s criminal history. The court found that the sentencing judge’s remarks did not contain any factual errors and that the inference regarding the applicant’s disregard for the law was supported by the evidence. The court also considered that the applicant’s trial counsel had broadly agreed with the sentence, which was a factor in favour of the sentence's appropriateness. Given these considerations, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application.

The final order of the court was to refuse the application for a new trial or appeal against the sentence, confirming that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was appropriate and did not warrant any interference.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application 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

Full text does not contain this section.