R v L - [2002] QCA 485

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v L [2002] QCA 485

PARTIES:

R
v
L
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 238 of 2002
SC No 326 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

7 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application granted, appeal allowed, set aside the sentences only to the extent of deleting the order for suspension after 12 months and order that the sentence be suspended after the applicant has served six months imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying methylamphetamine - where the applicant had a minor criminal history - where there were a number of mitigating factors - whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS - INFORMERS - where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying methylamphetamine - where the applicant co-operated extensively with the police - whether the learned sentencing judge gave an appropriate reduction in the applicant's sentence given the extent of her co-operation

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A

R v Thompson (1994) 76 A Crim R 75, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC, with S M Cool, for applicant
T A Fuller for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I will invite Justice Davies to deliver the first judgment.

DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court on 18 July this year to three counts of supplying methylamphetamine on 1 June 2001, on 11 June 2001 and on 19 June 2001. She was sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 12 months. She seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

At the time of the sentence the applicant was 25 years of age. She was about 24 when the offences were committed. She has a minor criminal history which Mr Glynn SC today described as more bulk than seriousness, with which I agree. Prior to the commission of these offences she had been convicted of unlawfully taking shop goods away in 1994, insulting words and obstructing police in 1995 and serious assault on a police officer in 1996. On the first two of those offences she was fined and on the third she was sentenced to four months imprisonment wholly suspended. She was then committed for a breach of bail undertaking in December 1999, for which she was fined in July 2001 after she had committed these offences.

Then after the commission of these offences she committed an offence of being in possession of a dangerous…

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 L

Details

AGLC: R v L [2002] QCA 485
Case: [2002] QCA 485
Decision Date: 7 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying methylamphetamine. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the applicant's cooperation with the police when reducing the sentence. The applicant had a minor criminal history and there were mitigating factors that the court had to take into account.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge gave an appropriate reduction in the applicant's sentence given the extent of her cooperation with the police. The court had to consider the relevant factors under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A and the case of R v Thompson (1994) 76 A Crim R 75.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge did not give an appropriate reduction in the applicant's sentence for her cooperation with the police. The court considered that the applicant's cooperation with the police was extensive and that the sentencing judge should have taken this into account when reducing the sentence. The court set aside the sentences only to the extent of deleting the order for suspension after 12 months and ordered that the sentence be suspended after the applicant has served six months imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, and the application was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted, appeal allowed, set aside the sentences only to the extent of deleting the order for suspension after 12 months and order that the sentence be suspended after the applicant has served six months imprisonment.

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 L [2002] QCA 485
PARTIES:	R v L (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 238 of 2002 SC No 326 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	7 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2002
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court; each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application granted, appeal allowed, set aside the sentences only to the extent of deleting the order for suspension after 12 months and order that the sentence be suspended after the applicant has served six months imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying methylamphetamine - where the applicant had a minor criminal history - where there were a number of mitigating factors - whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS - INFORMERS - where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of supplying methylamphetamine - where the applicant co-operated extensively with the police - whether the learned sentencing judge gave an appropriate reduction in the applicant's sentence given the extent of her co-operation *Penalties and Sentences Act* 1992 (Qld), s 13A R v Thompson (1994) 76 A Crim R 75, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Glynn SC, with S M Cool, for applicant T A Fuller for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robertson O'Gorman for applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent