R v Leathers

Case [2014] QCA 327

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Leathers [2014] QCA 327

PARTIES:

R
v
LEATHERS, Hale Nathan
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 276 of 2014
SC No 45 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser, Gotterson and Morrison JJA
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 – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where the applicant and his de facto partner trafficked cannabis as street-level dealers – where the applicant acquired drugs from a wholesaler who supplied up to fourteen other dealers – where the applicant operated independently of the other dealers – where the applicant trafficked mainly to satisfy his partner’s addiction – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a single count of unlawfully trafficking a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment to be suspended after six months with an operational period of three years – whether the parity principle ought to be enlarged to consider the sentences of other offenders who acquired drugs from the same wholesaler

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant had not re-offended during the comparatively long period between his arrest and sentence – where there was no commercial element in the offending – whether the learned sentencing judge gave adequate weight to such considerations

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – whether considerations of specific and general deterrence necessitated a sentence of imprisonment

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – whether the six months’ actual period of imprisonment was manifestly excessive

Farrugia v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 140; [2011] VSCA 24, distinguished
R v AAH & AAG (2009) 198 A Crim R 1; [2009] QCA 321, cited
R v Barratt[2014] QCA 227, considered
R v Burton, unreported, North J, SC No 65 of 2013, 2 December 2013, cited
R v Cairns[2011] QCA 145, considered
R v Dowel; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2013] QCA 8, considered
R v Eves, unreported, North J, SC No 20 of 2014, 6 June 2014, cited
R v Illin[2014] QCA 285, related
R v Roberts, unreported, Durward DCJ, DC No 152 of 2014, 27 August 2014, cited

COUNSEL:

T A Ryan for the applicant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the…

Continue reading R v Leathers

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Leathers [2014] QCA 327
Case
[2014] QCA 327
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant appealed against the sentence imposed upon him by the County Court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant, along with his de facto partner, was involved in the trafficking of cannabis as street-level dealers. The applicant was found to have acquired drugs from a wholesaler who supplied up to fourteen other dealers, although he operated independently of these other dealers. The primary motivation for his drug trafficking was to satisfy his partner’s addiction. The applicant pleaded guilty to a single count of unlawfully trafficking a dangerous drug and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, to be suspended after six months, with an operational period of three years.

The court was required to determine whether the parity principle should be extended to consider the sentences of other offenders who acquired drugs from the same wholesaler. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the learned sentencing judge adequately weighed the applicant's lack of re-offending during the period between his arrest and sentencing, the absence of a commercial element in his offending, and the need for specific and general deterrence. The court also had to evaluate whether the six months' actual period of imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

The court considered that the parity principle does not necessarily extend to include co-offenders who acquire drugs from the same wholesaler, particularly when their roles and contributions to the crime differ significantly. The court found that the sentencing judge had given adequate consideration to the factors mitigating the applicant’s culpability, including his lack of re-offending and the personal nature of his drug trafficking. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and the considerations of deterrence did not necessitate a sentence of imprisonment. 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.