R v Lyle - [2013] QCA 293

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lyle [2013] QCA 293

PARTIES:

R
v
LYLE, Bradley Grant
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 147 of 2013
DC No 97 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2013

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

The application to appeal be granted.1.

The sentences imposed on 14 May 2013 be set aside and in lieu thereof:2.

(a)in respect of the production count, a fine of $3,000 be imposed with 12 months to pay and in default three months imprisonment with a conviction being recorded.

(b)in respect of the possession count, a conviction be recorded with no further penalty being imposed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced on his plea to one count of producing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams and one count of possessing a thing used in connection with producing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams – where the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment with immediate parole release in respect of each count – where police located eight cannabis plants, a quantity of loose cannabis and a quantity of chemicals and fertilisers for use in the production process on the applicant’s property – where the cannabis weighed a total of 14.77 kilograms – where the applicant submitted that the sentences were manifestly excessive in that the sentencing judge placed too much emphasis on the serious aspects of the offending and failed to give sufficient regard to the applicant’s mitigating factors – where the mitigating factors identified were that there was no commercial element to the offending, the applicant had no prior criminal history, the production was solely for personal use, the applicant was an otherwise responsible contributing member of society and the applicant had taken significant steps to rehabilitate himself and escape his cannabis addiction – whether the sentences were manifestly excessive

R v Armstrong[2007] QCA 427, considered
R v Blakers; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[1997] QCA 79, considered
R v Tarabay[1998] QCA 317, considered
R v Toohey[2004] QCA 388, considered

COUNSEL:

D R Wilson for the applicant
D A Holliday for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rostron Carlyle Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of Philippides J and with the orders she proposes.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Philippides J and with the reasons given by her Honour.

PHILIPPIDES J: The applicant was sentenced on 14 May 2013 on his plea to one count of producing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams and one count of possessing a…

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 Lyle

Details

AGLC: R v Lyle [2013] QCA 293
Case: [2013] QCA 293
Decision Date: 4 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lyle, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for producing and possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams. The court of appeal was required to determine whether the sentences were manifestly excessive or inadequate. The primary judge had sentenced Lyle to six months imprisonment with immediate parole release for each count. The appeal hinged on the argument that the sentences were manifestly excessive due to the primary judge's emphasis on the seriousness of the offences and insufficient regard for mitigating factors. These mitigating factors included the absence of a commercial element, no prior criminal history, the production being solely for personal use, Lyle being a responsible member of society, and his significant efforts towards rehabilitation and overcoming his cannabis addiction.

The court of appeal considered the principles guiding sentencing, particularly the need to balance the seriousness of the offence and the offender's culpability against mitigating factors. The court noted the substantial quantity of cannabis involved, weighing 14.77 kilograms, along with the presence of equipment for drug production, indicating a serious level of offending. However, the court also acknowledged the mitigating factors presented, particularly the personal nature of the offending and Lyle's efforts towards rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were indeed manifestly excessive, as the primary judge had overemphasised the seriousness of the offending without adequately weighing the mitigating factors.

Accordingly, the court granted the appeal, set aside the sentences imposed, and ordered alternative penalties. For the production count, the court imposed a fine of $3,000 with 12 months to pay, and in default, three months imprisonment with a conviction being recorded. For the possession count, the court recorded a conviction with no further penalty imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to appeal be granted.1.

The sentences imposed on 14 May 2013 be set aside and in lieu thereof:2.

(a)in respect of the production count, a fine of $3,000 be imposed with 12 months to pay and in default three months imprisonment with a conviction being recorded.

(b)in respect of the possession count, a conviction be recorded with no further penalty being imposed.

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 Lyle [2013] QCA 293
PARTIES:	R v LYLE, Bradley Grant (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 147 of 2013 DC No 97 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 September 2013
JUDGES:	Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	The application to appeal be granted.1. The sentences imposed on 14 May 2013 be set aside and in lieu thereof:2. (a)in respect of the production count, a fine of $3,000 be imposed with 12 months to pay and in default three months imprisonment with a conviction being recorded. (b)in respect of the possession count, a conviction be recorded with no further penalty being imposed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced on his plea to one count of producing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams and one count of possessing a thing used in connection with producing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams – where the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment with immediate parole release in respect of each count – where police located eight cannabis plants, a quantity of loose cannabis and a quantity of chemicals and fertilisers for use in the production process on the applicant’s property – where the cannabis weighed a total of 14.77 kilograms – where the applicant submitted that the sentences were manifestly excessive in that the sentencing judge placed too much emphasis on the serious aspects of the offending and failed to give sufficient regard to the applicant’s mitigating factors – where the mitigating factors identified were that there was no commercial element to the offending, the applicant had no prior criminal history, the production was solely for personal use, the applicant was an otherwise responsible contributing member of society and the applicant had taken significant steps to rehabilitate himself and escape his cannabis addiction – whether the sentences were manifestly excessive R v Armstrong[2007] QCA 427, considered R v Blakers; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[1997] QCA 79, considered R v Tarabay[1998] QCA 317, considered R v Toohey[2004] QCA 388, considered
COUNSEL:	D R Wilson for the applicant D A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Rostron Carlyle Solicitors for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent