SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Martin [2002] QCA 513
PARTIES:
R
V
MARTIN, William Amos
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 269 of 2002
SC No 65 of 2002DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:
21 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
21 November 2002
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND
INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW
TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of producing dangerous drug methylamphetamine – whether sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstancesR v Boyd [1999] QCA 421; CA No 134 of 2001, 3 October 2001, considered
R v Campbell [2002] QCA 109; CA No 315 of 2001, 21 March 2002, considered
R v Denton [1999] QCA 343; CA No 168 of 1999, 20 August
1999, referred to
R v Green [1999] QCA 83; CA No 372 of 1998, 19 March 1999, referred to
R v Welch [2002] QCA 36; CA No 299 of 2001, 19 February 2002, consideredCOUNSEL:
A J Kimmins for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Forrest Lake Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court on the 17th of July 2002 to one count of producing a dangerous drug methylamphetamine. On 22 August 2002 he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 18 months. He contends that sentence is manifestly excessive.
On the 20th of August 2000 the police received information and executed a warrant at the applicant's address. There was a strong smell of methylated spirits in the house. The applicant was engaged in extracting pseudoephedrine, the base chemical used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, from Sudafed tablets. Police located 95.4 grams of pseudoephedrine. The applicant had ground a large quantity of Sudafed tablets and mixed them with methylated spirits to separate the pseudoephedrine and was using the microwave to boil off the spirit, creating a potentially explosive situation.
Police also found iodine crystals, Pyrex dishes, grounding apparatus, scales containing traces of methylamphetamine, razor blades, scraping knives, a scientific manual, the chemical sodium hypophosphite, and caustic soda. About a third of the pseudoephedrine found had been extracted and dried. The applicant told police he was drying it out for someone but declined to name this person, implying that to do so would place his life at risk.
The quantity of pseudoephedrine found could, under optimum circumstances, have produced up to 85 grams of pure methylamphetamine, a very substantial quantity.
The prosecution did not proceed with the circumstance of aggravation, that the quantity of the dangerous drug exceeded two grams, because the dangerous drug had not…
Continue reading R v Martin
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Martin [2002] QCA 513
- Case
- [2002] QCA 513
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the principles of appellate jurisdiction and the substantial grounds test, examining the severity of the sentence and the relevant circumstances. The court weighed the principle that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with sentencing decisions, given the trial judge's advantage of observing the offender and hearing the evidence firsthand. The court also assessed whether the sentence was disproportionate to the offence committed, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct. After a thorough review of the evidence and the submissions, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. 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.