R v. Keenan - [2007] QCA 411

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Keenan [2007] QCA 411

PARTIES:

R
v
KEENAN, Jason Gary
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 197 of 2007
SC No 900 of 2006
SC No 613 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

21 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November

JUDGES:

Williams and Holmes JJA and McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, seven counts of supplying methylamphetamine, one count of stealing and one count of fraud – where head sentence of four years and 10 months imprisonment imposed on the trafficking count with a parole eligibility date set after serving approximately two years and two months – where applicant aged 35 at time of offence – where applicant on bail for other offences when he carried out the trafficking – where 48 days of non-declarable pre-sentence custody considered – where six months imprisonment served for other offences – whether sentence inconsistent with sentence imposed on a co-offender – whether regard should have been had to time served for other offences – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Rizk[2004] QCA 382; CA No 224 of 2004, 15 October 2007, cited
R v Murray [2006] QCA 154; CA No 27 of 2006, 12 May 2007, cited
R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379; CA No 192 of 2005, 14 October 2005, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant, who has appeared on his own behalf, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa), seven counts of supplying methylamphetamine, one count of stealing and one count of fraud.

The head sentence imposed on the trafficking count was four years and 10 months' imprisonment with a parole eligibility date fixed at 1 September 2009. That is, after serving approximately two years and two months in custody.

The applicant was born on 22 June 1970, making him 35 when the offences were committed and 37 when sentenced. He had a lengthy criminal history. He was fined in the Magistrates Court for possession of or producing dangerous drugs in 1988, 1990, 1995 and 1997. Then on 15 June 1998, he was convicted in the Wynnum Magistrates Court on five counts of fraud, one count of stealing and drug-related charges.

A variety of penalties were then imposed. The penalties included community…

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. Keenan

Details

AGLC: R v Keenan [2007] QCA 411
Case: [2007] QCA 411
Decision Date: 21 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v. Keenan involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant following his conviction on various drug-related and theft charges. The applicant had pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, supplying methylamphetamine on seven occasions, stealing, and fraud. The court imposed a head sentence of four years and 10 months imprisonment for the trafficking charge, with parole eligibility set after approximately two years and two months of the sentence had been served. The applicant was 35 years old at the time of the offence and had been on bail for other offences when he carried out the trafficking. The court also considered 48 days of non-declarable pre-sentence custody and six months imprisonment served for other offences. The applicant argued that the sentence was inconsistent with the sentence imposed on a co-offender, that the court should have taken into account the time served for other offences, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was inconsistent with that imposed on a co-offender, whether the court should have taken into account the time served for other offences, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered these issues in the context of the principles of sentencing and the need to ensure that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offending and took into account any relevant mitigating factors. The court also considered the need to ensure that the sentence had a deterrent effect and that it was consistent with the sentences imposed on co-offenders.

The court found that there was no inconsistency in the sentence imposed on the applicant and the co-offender, as the circumstances of the co-offender's offending were different and the court had properly considered the relevant factors in imposing the sentence. The court also found that the time served for other offences was properly taken into account in the sentencing process, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the applicant had a significant criminal history and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending. The court was also satisfied that the sentence had a deterrent effect and was consistent with the need to protect the community.

The application was dismissed, and the sentence imposed on the applicant was upheld. The court emphasised the need for sentences to be proportionate to the offending and to take into account any relevant mitigating factors, but also the need for sentences to have a deterrent effect and to be consistent with the sentences imposed on co-offenders. The court also noted the importance of ensuring that sentences reflected the seriousness of the offending and protected the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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 Keenan [2007] QCA 411
PARTIES:	R v KEENAN, Jason Gary (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 197 of 2007 SC No 900 of 2006 SC No 613 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	21 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November
JUDGES:	Williams and Holmes JJA and McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, seven counts of supplying methylamphetamine, one count of stealing and one count of fraud – where head sentence of four years and 10 months imprisonment imposed on the trafficking count with a parole eligibility date set after serving approximately two years and two months – where applicant aged 35 at time of offence – where applicant on bail for other offences when he carried out the trafficking – where 48 days of non-declarable pre-sentence custody considered – where six months imprisonment served for other offences – whether sentence inconsistent with sentence imposed on a co-offender – whether regard should have been had to time served for other offences – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Rizk[2004] QCA 382; CA No 224 of 2004, 15 October 2007, cited R v Murray [2006] QCA 154; CA No 27 of 2006, 12 May 2007, cited R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379; CA No 192 of 2005, 14 October 2005, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent