R v Laidlaw - [2016] QCA 290

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Laidlaw [2016] QCA 290

PARTIES:

R
v
LAIDLAW, Nathan Andrew
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 14 of 2016
SC No 72 of 2015
SC No 73 of 2015
SC No 77 of 2015
SC No 86 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 9 December 2015

DELIVERED ON:

11 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2016

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 five months, assault occasioning bodily harm on a separate indictment, and 14 charges listed in bench charge sheets – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after three years with an operational period of five years for the trafficking count – where the sentence for the trafficking count is to be served concurrently with concurrent sentences for the summary offences that are served cumulatively upon the unlawful assault, totalling four years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set after three years – where the learned sentencing judge reduced what he thought was the appropriate head sentence for the trafficking count and increased what might otherwise have been imposed for the summary offences relating to property, resulting in the effect of s 5(2) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) being avoided – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 144

Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372; [1989] HCA 39, cited
R v Clark[2016] QCA 173, considered
R v McAway (2008) 191 A Crim R 475; [2008] QCA 401, considered
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, cited
R v P[2004] QCA 365, considered
R v Rizk[2004] QCA 382, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G P Cash QC, with K S Whealan, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

GOTTERSON JA: On 20 November 2015 in the Supreme Court at Rockhampton, the applicant, Nathan Andrew Laidlaw, pleaded guilty to two offences charged by separate indictment. The count on one of the indictments alleged an offence against s 339(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) in that on 15 August 2014 at Rockhampton, the applicant unlawfully assaulted Steven Richard Atkins and did him bodily harm. The count on the other indictment alleged an offence against s 5(1)(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) (“DMA”) in that between 15 February 2014 and 24 July 2014 at…

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 Laidlaw

Details

AGLC: R v Laidlaw [2016] QCA 290
Case: [2016] QCA 290
Decision Date: 11 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an applicant who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine over a period of five months, assault occasioning bodily harm, and 14 charges listed in bench charge sheets. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was so disproportionate to the offence that it could be considered manifestly excessive, warranting interference by the appellate court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying an appeal against the sentence. The applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the nature of the offences and the length of the custodial sentence. The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to the case, including the principles of proportionality and deterrence, as well as the specific provisions of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The court also considered the overall impact of the sentence on the applicant and whether it achieved the purposes of punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It found that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The court noted that the sentence for the trafficking count was suspended after three years, with an operational period of five years, and was to be served concurrently with sentences for summary offences, resulting in a total of four years imprisonment. The court also found that the trial judge had appropriately reduced the head sentence for the trafficking count and increased the sentences for the summary offences, thereby avoiding the effect of section 5(2) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The court held that the sentence achieved the purposes of punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence, and was not manifestly excessive.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, finding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant interference by the appellate court. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case, and it upheld the trial judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

CITATION:	R v Laidlaw [2016] QCA 290
PARTIES:	R v LAIDLAW, Nathan Andrew (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 14 of 2016 SC No 72 of 2015 SC No 73 of 2015 SC No 77 of 2015 SC No 86 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 9 December 2015
DELIVERED ON:	11 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 September 2016
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 five months, assault occasioning bodily harm on a separate indictment, and 14 charges listed in bench charge sheets – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after three years with an operational period of five years for the trafficking count – where the sentence for the trafficking count is to be served concurrently with concurrent sentences for the summary offences that are served cumulatively upon the unlawful assault, totalling four years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date set after three years – where the learned sentencing judge reduced what he thought was the appropriate head sentence for the trafficking count and increased what might otherwise have been imposed for the summary offences relating to property, resulting in the effect of s 5(2) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) being avoided – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 144 Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372; [1989] HCA 39, cited R v Clark[2016] QCA 173, considered R v McAway (2008) 191 A Crim R 475; [2008] QCA 401, considered R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, cited R v P[2004] QCA 365, considered R v Rizk[2004] QCA 382, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G P Cash QC, with K S Whealan, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent