R v McRea - [2015] QCA 110

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v McRea [2015] QCA 110

PARTIES:

R
v
McREA, Jesse Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 330 of 2014
SC No 398 of 2014
SC No 601 of 2014
SC No 767 of 2014
SC No 790 of 2014
SC No 796 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 12 December 2014

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 26 counts – where Count 1 on indictment 398 of 2014 alleged trafficking in a dangerous Schedule 1 drug, Methylamphetamine in contravention of section 5(1)(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – where Count 1 on indictment 601 of 2014 alleged that the applicant unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to a police officer in contravention of section 320 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment for the trafficking offence and three years’ imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm, along with other lesser sentences for the other 24 offences – where all sentences imposed are to be served concurrently – where parole eligibility was granted at the one third mark – where the offending concerned a four month period of trafficking in Methylamphetamine – where the applicant was arrested three times for trafficking and on the third occasion resisted arrest which recklessly resulted in injuries to the arresting officers – where the applicant proposed that this Court adopt as principle the observations of Dalton J in R v Bowditch [2014] QCA 157 at [23] – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in failing to clearly identify the way in which the sentence for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug was determined

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the learned sentencing judge noted during the sentence hearing that the sentence for trafficking after trial ought to have been six years’ imprisonment and the sentence for the violence directed towards the police officers after trial ought to have been in the order of three or four years’ imprisonment – whether in all the circumstances the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 320, s 340(1)(b)(a)(ii)
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(1)(a), s 6 (1)(c), s 9(b), s 9(d), s 10(1)(a), s 10(1)(b)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 50(1)(c)(i)

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, considered
Makarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, considered
R v Bowditch [2014] QCA…

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 McRea

Details

AGLC: R v McRea [2015] QCA 110
Case: [2015] QCA 110
Decision Date: 19 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant appealed against his sentence following his conviction for multiple criminal offences, including trafficking in a dangerous drug and causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in the sentencing process and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The key issue was whether the trial judge had adequately articulated the basis for the sentences imposed on the applicant for the trafficking and grievous bodily harm offences.

The Court of Appeal examined the sentencing remarks made by the trial judge and noted that the trial judge had indicated that, had the matters proceeded to trial, the sentence for trafficking would have been six years' imprisonment, and for the grievous bodily harm, three to four years' imprisonment. The Court considered the totality of the offending, which spanned four months and included multiple arrests, culminating in the applicant's resistance to arrest, which caused injuries to police officers. The Court held that the trial judge had adequately considered the principles of sentencing and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court also rejected the applicant's suggestion that the observations of Dalton J in R v Bowditch should be adopted as a principle, finding no merit in the argument that the trial judge had failed to clearly identify the way in which the sentence for the trafficking offence was determined.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against sentence. The Court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the offending and the relevant sentencing principles, and that the sentence imposed was proportionate and not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the applicant's leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

CITATION:	R v McRea [2015] QCA 110
PARTIES:	R v McREA, Jesse Robert (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 330 of 2014 SC No 398 of 2014 SC No 601 of 2014 SC No 767 of 2014 SC No 790 of 2014 SC No 796 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 12 December 2014
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 June 2015
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 26 counts – where Count 1 on indictment 398 of 2014 alleged trafficking in a dangerous Schedule 1 drug, Methylamphetamine in contravention of section 5(1)(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – where Count 1 on indictment 601 of 2014 alleged that the applicant unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to a police officer in contravention of section 320 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment for the trafficking offence and three years’ imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm, along with other lesser sentences for the other 24 offences – where all sentences imposed are to be served concurrently – where parole eligibility was granted at the one third mark – where the offending concerned a four month period of trafficking in Methylamphetamine – where the applicant was arrested three times for trafficking and on the third occasion resisted arrest which recklessly resulted in injuries to the arresting officers – where the applicant proposed that this Court adopt as principle the observations of Dalton J in R v Bowditch [2014] QCA 157 at [23] – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in failing to clearly identify the way in which the sentence for the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug was determined CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the learned sentencing judge noted during the sentence hearing that the sentence for trafficking after trial ought to have been six years’ imprisonment and the sentence for the violence directed towards the police officers after trial ought to have been in the order of three or four years’ imprisonment – whether in all the circumstances the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 320, s 340(1)(b)(a)(ii) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(1)(a), s 6 (1)(c), s 9(b), s 9(d), s 10(1)(a), s 10(1)(b) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 50(1)(c)(i) Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, considered Makarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, considered R v Bowditch [2014] QCA…