R v Mead - [2022] QCA 82

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mead [2022] QCA 82

PARTIES:

R
v
MEAD, Alex Sean
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 25 of 2022
SC No 1030 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 27 September 2021 (Daubney J)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

19 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2022

JUDGES:

Morrison and Mullins JJA and Kelly J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to nine offences including three aggravated possessions of schedule 1 drugs, other drug offences, a category R weapon offence and three related summary offences – where the pleas of guilty were very early – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on the most serious count which was possession of 37.737 grams of pure MDMA and concurrent sentences for the other counts and was given a fixed parole release date after one year in custody – where the applicant had no prior criminal history and was a drug addict – where the imprisonment of the applicant had a significant impact on the applicant’s teenage child – where the aggravated possession of the schedule 1 drugs was primarily for a commercial purpose – where the applicant submits that a parole release date earlier than one-third of the sentence should have been imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Hawke[2021] QCA 179, cited

COUNSEL:

M L Longhurst for the applicant
C L Birkett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

RH Legal for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MULLINS JA: On 27 September 2021 Mr Mead pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of two grams (counts 1-3), two counts of possessing a dangerous drug (counts 4 and 5), one count of possessing a thing for use in connection with possessing a dangerous drug (count 6), one count of possessing instructions for producing a dangerous drug (count 7), one count of contravening order about information necessary to access information stored electronically (count 8) and one count of possessing a category R weapon (count 9). All these offences were committed on 12 August 2020. He also pleaded guilty to three related summary offences committed on the same date as the counts on the indictment.
In respect of count 1, Mr Mead was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. In respect of each of counts 2-9, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of two years. Mr Mead was given a fixed parole release date of 26 September 2022 which was after serving one year in actual custody.
In respect of the summary offences, he was convicted, a conviction was recorded and he was not further punished.
Mr Mead applies for leave to appeal on the ground that…

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 Mead

Details

AGLC: R v Mead [2022] QCA 82
Case: [2022] QCA 82
Decision Date: 19 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case pleaded guilty to multiple drug and weapon related offences, including three counts of aggravated possession of schedule 1 drugs, and was sentenced to imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the primary judge, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was excessive, considering the nature of the offences, the applicant’s plea of guilty, and the personal circumstances of the applicant.

The primary judge considered the serious nature of the offences, particularly the possession of a significant quantity of pure MDMA for commercial purposes. The court also considered the early plea of guilty by the applicant and the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal history. The court also acknowledged the significant impact of the imprisonment on the applicant’s teenage child. The applicant submitted that a parole release date earlier than one-third of the sentence should have been imposed. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account all the relevant factors.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the primary judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised their discretion appropriately. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and was consistent with sentences imposed for similar offences. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was proportionate to the offending and did not amount to a manifest excess.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal. The sentence imposed by the primary judge was upheld, and the applicant's appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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 Mead [2022] QCA 82
PARTIES:	R v MEAD, Alex Sean (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 25 of 2022 SC No 1030 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 27 September 2021 (Daubney J)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	19 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 May 2022
JUDGES:	Morrison and Mullins JJA and Kelly J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to nine offences including three aggravated possessions of schedule 1 drugs, other drug offences, a category R weapon offence and three related summary offences – where the pleas of guilty were very early – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on the most serious count which was possession of 37.737 grams of pure MDMA and concurrent sentences for the other counts and was given a fixed parole release date after one year in custody – where the applicant had no prior criminal history and was a drug addict – where the imprisonment of the applicant had a significant impact on the applicant’s teenage child – where the aggravated possession of the schedule 1 drugs was primarily for a commercial purpose – where the applicant submits that a parole release date earlier than one-third of the sentence should have been imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Hawke[2021] QCA 179, cited
COUNSEL:	M L Longhurst for the applicant C L Birkett for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	RH Legal for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent