R v King

Case [2020] QCA 9


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v King [2020] QCA 9

PARTIES:

R
v
KING, Jon Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 136 of 2019
SC No 17 of 2019
SC No 42 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 18 April 2019 (Applegarth J)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:


4 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison and Mullins JJA

ORDER:

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 was convicted on his own plea of guilty of four counts on an indictment and seven summary offences – where the indictable offences were as follows: trafficking in a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine; two counts of possession of a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine; and possession of things used in the commission of a crime – where the summary offences were all drug-related – where the applicant was sentenced on the trafficking offence to imprisonment for a period of nine years – where the applicant challenges his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, centrally because the parole eligibility date should have been set earlier than it was – whether the sentence was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – whether the learned sentencing judge made a wrong decision on a question of law – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Abbott[2017] QCA 57, distinguished
R v Berry[2017] QCA 271, considered
R v Corbett[2018] QCA 341, considered
R v Gordon[2016] QCA 10, distinguished
R v Miller[2013] QCA 346, distinguished
R v Strutt[2017] QCA 195, distinguished
R v Tran; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2018] QCA 22, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M P Le Grand for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

SOFRONOFF P:  Justice Morrison will give his reasons first.  Have a seat, Mr King.

MORRISON JA:  On 18 April 2019, the applicant pleaded guilty to four counts on an indictment and seven summary offences.  The indictable offences were as follows:

(a)Trafficking in a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, between 31 December 2016 and 9 September 2017,

(b)Two counts of possession of a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, on 8 September 2017, and

(c)Possession of things used in commission of a crime.

The summary offences were all drug-related, consisting of two counts of possession of property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence, two counts of possession of utensils or pipes that had been used, failure to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of a syringe or needle, possession of utensils or pipes for use in the commission of…

Continue reading R v King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v King [2020] QCA 9
Case
[2020] QCA 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v King, the applicant appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant had pleaded guilty to four indictable offences and seven summary offences, all related to drug trafficking and possession of dangerous drugs. The court sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment for the trafficking offence. The applicant's primary contention was that the parole eligibility date was set too late, rendering the sentence excessive. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the sentence imposed was unreasonable, and if the sentencing judge had erred in law.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the evidence and the principles of sentencing. It examined the nature and severity of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the sentencing objectives. The court assessed the proportionality of the sentence and whether it was within the range of reasonable sentences for the offences committed. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there was a miscarriage of justice or if the sentencing judge had made a wrong decision on a question of law.

After reviewing the evidence and the principles of sentencing, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had correctly considered all relevant factors and had not made a wrong decision on a question of law. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court's decision was that the sentence was reasonable and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for punishment and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

Full text does not contain this section.