R v Liddle - [2006] QCA 45

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Liddle [2006] QCA 45

PARTIES:

R
v
LIDDLE, Gregory Neville
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 252 of 2005
SC No 76 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2006

JUDGES:

Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted1.

Appeal allowed but only to the extent that the sentence of two years imprisonment is reduced to one year and eight months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the activated balance of the suspended sentence and the cumulative sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court on 10 August 20052.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of producing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug and one count of possession of things used in producing a dangerous drug - where applicant sentenced to two years imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon a sentence of one month imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court for another offence - where applicant had engaged in production of methylamphetamine while enjoying the benefit of a suspended sentence for trafficking in that drug - where learned sentencing judge did not make recommendation for post-prison community based release - where applicant caused delays in the prosecution process - where it was argued that learned sentencing judge had failed to give reasons for imposing cumulative sentences - where Department of Corrective Services' interpretation of the sentences led to inadvertent extension of sentence - whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(3), s 135,
s 147(2), s 157(3)

Gordon & Camp v Whybrow [1998] QCA 052; CA No 10 of 1998, 24 March 1998, cited
R v Day & Gill [2005] QCA 100; CA No 35 of 2005 and CA No 46 of 2005, 7 April 2005, considered
R v Fifita [2004] QCA 201; [2005] 1 Qd R 51, applied
R v Jeffs [2005] QCA 35; CA No 422 of 2004, 25 February 2005, considered
R v Mallon [1997] QCA 58; CA No 480 of 1996, 21 March 1997, considered
R v Waters [1997] QCA 439; [1998] 2 Qd R 442, applied

COUNSEL:

B P Marais for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Paul Carter and Associates for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 6 April 2005, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of producing a dangerous drug, namely methylamphetamine, one count of possessing a dangerous drug, namely methylamphetamine in excess of two grams, and one count of possession of things used in producing a dangerous drug, namely laboratory equipment and chemicals. On 31…

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 Liddle

Details

AGLC: R v Liddle [2006] QCA 45
Case: [2006] QCA 45
Decision Date: 3 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Liddle concerns an appeal against sentence by the convicted person, Liddle, who pleaded guilty to producing a dangerous drug, possessing a dangerous drug, and possessing items used in producing a dangerous drug. Liddle was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be served cumulatively with a one-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court for another offence. Liddle had previously been on a suspended sentence for trafficking in methylamphetamine and had engaged in drug production while benefiting from this suspension. The sentencing judge did not recommend post-prison community-based release, and Liddle had caused delays in the prosecution process. The appeal focused on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for the cumulative sentences. The Department of Corrective Services' interpretation of the sentences had inadvertently extended the sentence length.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge adequately justified the cumulative sentences. The court examined if the cumulative sentencing was justified given Liddle's previous history of drug-related offenses and the delays caused in the prosecution process. The court also needed to determine if the Department of Corrective Services' interpretation of the sentences led to an inadvertent extension of Liddle's sentence. The court's reasoning involved a thorough review of previous cases and statutory provisions under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The appeal court considered the principles set out in R v Day & Gill and R v Fifita, among other cases, to assess the sentence's proportionality and the judge's reasoning.

The appeal court found that while the sentence was not manifestly excessive, there was a need for clarification regarding the cumulative sentencing and its justification. The court noted that the sentencing judge did not explicitly state the reasons for imposing cumulative sentences, which was a point of contention in the appeal. Additionally, the Department of Corrective Services' interpretation of the sentences led to an inadvertent extension. The appeal court allowed the appeal but reduced the two-year imprisonment sentence to one year and eight months, to be served cumulatively on the activated balance of the suspended sentence and the cumulative sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court on 10 August 2005. This decision ensured that the sentence was proportionate and that the reasons for the cumulative sentencing were adequately addressed.

The final orders of the court were to grant the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, allow the appeal to the extent of reducing the sentence to one year and eight months imprisonment, and direct that this reduced sentence be served cumulatively on the activated balance of the suspended sentence and the cumulative sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court on 10 August 2005. This ruling aimed to correct the inadvertent extension of the sentence while maintaining a proportionate punishment for Liddle's offenses.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted1.

Appeal allowed but only to the extent that the sentence of two years imprisonment is reduced to one year and eight months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the activated balance of the suspended sentence and the cumulative sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court on 10 August 20052.

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 Liddle [2006] QCA 45
PARTIES:	R v LIDDLE, Gregory Neville (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 252 of 2005 SC No 76 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2006
JUDGES:	Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted1. Appeal allowed but only to the extent that the sentence of two years imprisonment is reduced to one year and eight months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on the activated balance of the suspended sentence and the cumulative sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court on 10 August 20052.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of producing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug and one count of possession of things used in producing a dangerous drug - where applicant sentenced to two years imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon a sentence of one month imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court for another offence - where applicant had engaged in production of methylamphetamine while enjoying the benefit of a suspended sentence for trafficking in that drug - where learned sentencing judge did not make recommendation for post-prison community based release - where applicant caused delays in the prosecution process - where it was argued that learned sentencing judge had failed to give reasons for imposing cumulative sentences - where Department of Corrective Services' interpretation of the sentences led to inadvertent extension of sentence - whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(3), s 135, s 147(2), s 157(3) Gordon & Camp v Whybrow [1998] QCA 052; CA No 10 of 1998, 24 March 1998, cited R v Day & Gill [2005] QCA 100; CA No 35 of 2005 and CA No 46 of 2005, 7 April 2005, considered R v Fifita [2004] QCA 201; [2005] 1 Qd R 51, applied R v Jeffs [2005] QCA 35; CA No 422 of 2004, 25 February 2005, considered R v Mallon [1997] QCA 58; CA No 480 of 1996, 21 March 1997, considered R v Waters [1997] QCA 439; [1998] 2 Qd R 442, applied
COUNSEL:	B P Marais for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Paul Carter and Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent