R v Lloyd - [2025] QCA 47

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lloyd [2025] QCA 47

PARTIES:

R
v
LLOYD, Sheldon Hayes
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 46 of 2024
SC No 1355 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 24 June 2022
(Davis J)

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 March 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Boddice JA and Crow J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal the sentence ought to 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 in relation to their involvement in a drug trafficking syndicate – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months for trafficking in dangerous drugs – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C

Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, applied
Island Maritime Limited v Filipowski (2006) 226 CLR 328; [2006] HCA 30, cited
Keen v R [2024] NSWCCA 157, applied
Martellotta v R [2021] NSWCCA 168, cited
R v Humphrys [1977] AC 1, cited
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42, cited
The Queen v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55, cited

COUNSEL:

T Ryan KC with G Perry for the applicant
J D Finch for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

AW Bale & Son for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MULLINS P: I agree with Crow J.
BODDICE JA: I agree with Crow J.
CROW J: Operation Papa Tennessee was a police operation in relation to the activities of a drug syndicate involved in the importation and trafficking of methylamphetamine from July 2017 to May 2019. The applicant was one of six persons who were apprehended, charged, pleaded guilty and were sentenced in respect to their involvement in the drug trafficking syndicate.
On 24 June 2022, Davis J sentenced the applicant to nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months for trafficking in dangerous drugs.
On 12 March 2024, the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against sentence, alleging four grounds of appeal; that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the judge acted on wrong principles, that the applicant's psychiatric conditions were not taken into account by the sentencing judge, and “misrepresentation by counsel”.
On 4 July 2024, Kelly J sentenced Shan Chiang to six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.
On 13 February 2025, the applicant sought leave to abandon the above four grounds of appeal and in lieu thereof argue only one ground of appeal that “the applicant has been left with a justifiable sense of grievance about the sentence imposed upon him, warranting a reduction in it, having regard to…

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 Lloyd

Details

AGLC: R v Lloyd [2025] QCA 47
Case: [2025] QCA 47
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lloyd involved the applicant who had pleaded guilty to his involvement in a drug trafficking syndicate. The applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and six months, for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The primary focus of the appeal was the severity of the sentence and whether it was disproportionate to the offence committed.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. This involved considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant's role within the syndicate, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in relevant case law. The court also had to weigh the need for general deterrence against the specific circumstances of the applicant's case.

The court found that while the offence was serious, the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the applicant's level of involvement and cooperation with authorities, as well as the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and was not disproportionate given the applicant's role in the syndicate. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal the sentence ought to 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 Lloyd [2025] QCA 47
PARTIES:	R v LLOYD, Sheldon Hayes (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 46 of 2024 SC No 1355 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 24 June 2022 (Davis J)
DELIVERED ON:	11 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 March 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Boddice JA and Crow J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal the sentence ought to 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 in relation to their involvement in a drug trafficking syndicate – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months for trafficking in dangerous drugs – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, applied Island Maritime Limited v Filipowski (2006) 226 CLR 328; [2006] HCA 30, cited Keen v R [2024] NSWCCA 157, applied Martellotta v R [2021] NSWCCA 168, cited R v Humphrys [1977] AC 1, cited Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42, cited The Queen v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55, cited
COUNSEL:	T Ryan KC with G Perry for the applicant J D Finch for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	AW Bale & Son for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent