R v Lat - [2021] QCA 104

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LAT [2021] QCA 104

PARTIES:

R
v
LAT
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 146 of 2020
DC No 85 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 15 July 2020 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

14 May 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 February 2021

JUDGES:

Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Burns J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence be 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 dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment – where the applicant was a street level dealer – where the applicant was sentenced under s 13B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether adequate weight was put on the applicant’s cooperation with police – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment – where the applicant was a street level dealer – where the applicant disputes facts contained in an agreed schedule of facts and as submitted by counsel – whether the sentencing judge erred

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

R v Borowicz (2016) 260 A Crim R 590; [2016] QCA 211, considered
R v McAway (2008) 191 A Crim R 475; [2008] QCA 401, considered
R v Mikula [2015] QCA 102, considered
R v Scott[2006] QCA 76, considered
R v Taylor[2005] QCA 379, considered
R v Walker[2019] QCA 199, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of McMurdo JA and agree with those reasons and the order his Honour proposes.
McMURDO JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely methylamphetamine. She was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with an order that she be released on parole after serving 12 months. She seeks leave to appeal on the ground that her sentence was manifestly excessive. However, as I will discuss, she also makes specific complaints about the reasoning of the sentencing judge.
The applicant was aged 51 and 52 during the period of her offending, which was from 10 August 2017 until 22 March 2018. She had a very minor criminal history, the relevance of which was to confirm that she had been a user of drugs for some time until she was dealt with for possession offences in 2005. She is said to have been abstinent from drugs for a period…

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 Lat

Details

AGLC: R v Lat [2021] QCA 104
Case: [2021] QCA 104
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lat involved an appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court of Queensland. The applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, specifically methylamphetamine, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The applicant was a street-level dealer, and the sentencing was conducted under section 13B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The primary contention of the appeal was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, particularly in light of the applicant’s cooperation with the police.

The court had to determine two main issues: first, whether the sentencing judge had given adequate weight to the applicant's cooperation with law enforcement; and second, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently considered the extent of their cooperation, which should have warranted a lesser sentence. Additionally, the applicant disputed certain facts in the agreed schedule of facts, contending that these inaccuracies may have influenced the sentencing decision.

The court examined the sentencing principles and the role of cooperation in mitigating sentences. It held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the applicant's cooperation, albeit not to the extent the applicant desired. The court found no error in the sentencing process and concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence be 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 LAT [2021] QCA 104
PARTIES:	R v LAT (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 146 of 2020 DC No 85 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 15 July 2020 (Crow J)
DELIVERED ON:	14 May 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 February 2021
JUDGES:	Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Burns J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence be 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 dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment – where the applicant was a street level dealer – where the applicant was sentenced under s 13B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether adequate weight was put on the applicant’s cooperation with police – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine) – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment – where the applicant was a street level dealer – where the applicant disputes facts contained in an agreed schedule of facts and as submitted by counsel – whether the sentencing judge erred Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) R v Borowicz (2016) 260 A Crim R 590; [2016] QCA 211, considered R v McAway (2008) 191 A Crim R 475; [2008] QCA 401, considered R v Mikula [2015] QCA 102, considered R v Scott[2006] QCA 76, considered R v Taylor[2005] QCA 379, considered R v Walker[2019] QCA 199, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf C W Wallis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent