SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Lambert [2019] QCA 219
PARTIES:
R
v
LAMBERT, David Paul
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 25 of 2019
SC No 1052 of 2018
SC No 1520 of 2018
SC No 1979 of 2018
SC No 1 of 2019DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 9 January 2019 (Martin J)
DELIVERED ON:
18 October 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 August 2019
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA
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 three counts of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs contained in the first indictment – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a further four counts of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs, including a quantity of methylamphetamine in excess of 200 grams, and a substance, contained in the second indictment – where the second set of offences was committed within six months of the first offences and while the applicant was on bail – where the applicant possessed much greater quantities of dangerous drugs in the second set of offences than on the first occasion – where the learned sentencing judge accepted that the applicant possessed the dangerous drugs for commercial purposes – where the applicant was addicted to methylamphetamine – where the applicant’s criminal history was limited to a number of traffic offences – where the applicant was sentenced to an effective head sentence of eight years and two months imprisonment – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
R v Duong (2015) 255 A Crim R 57; [2015] QCA 170, considered
R v Richards [2017] QCA 299, distinguished
R v Shandiman (unreported, Henry J, Indictment No 61 of 2017, 19 July 2017), distinguished
R v Sorrento (unreported, Douglas J, 7 May 2009), distinguished
R v Ta[2018] QCA 342, considered
R v Tran[2014] QCA 90, consideredCOUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Balic for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
SOFRONOFF P: I agree with Gotterson JA.
GOTTERSON JA: On 9 January 2019, the applicant, David Paul Lambert, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court at Brisbane to a number of indictable offences against s 9(1) and s 9A(1) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) as well as other summary offences. On one indictment, it was alleged that on 4 September 2017 the applicant unlawfully possessed the following dangerous drugs:[1]
[1]AB 9-10.
Count 1
cannabis, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine;
Count 2
a quantity of cocaine that exceeded 2.0 grams; and
Count 3
a quantity of methylamphetamine that exceeded 2.0 grams
The summary offences alleged against the applicant included that on this day he unlawfully possessed a pipe that he had used in connection with the smoking of a…
Continue reading R v Lambert
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lambert [2019] QCA 219
- Case
- [2019] QCA 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant’s limited criminal history, addiction, and the fact that the offences were committed while on bail. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was outside the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed.
The court carefully reviewed the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and quantity of the drugs involved, the appellant's criminal history, the fact that the second set of offences occurred while the appellant was on bail, and the appellant’s addiction to methylamphetamine. The court found that the sentence was within the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed for the offences. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.
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.