R v Megson Summary | CaseChat AU

[1996] QCA 378

COURT OF APPEAL

MOYNIHAN J
MACKENZIE J
CULLINANE J

CA No 308 of 1996

THE QUEEN

SHANE GLEN MEGSON Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 01/10/96

JUDGMENT

011096 T2/RZB M/T COA239/96
MOYNIHAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The defendant had pleaded guilty to producing the dangerous drug cannabis sativa. There were some 96 plants involved. They were at no particular state of maturity. The case below was conducted on the basis that it was accepted that the plants were for the applicant's own use.

The Magistrate imposed a sentence of four months imprisonment. He did so on the basis that the norm given by the Supreme Court in respect of the matter was around about two to four years. At that stage the sentencing discretion miscarried. That is not to my understanding a proper reflection of what might be said to be the norm. Indeed, it was quite open to the Magistrate to consider sentencing options short of a custodial sentence, even bearing in mind that the applicant had a criminal history of some offences including, I think, in relation to the production of or involvement with the same dangerous drugs. In my view, the application should succeed.

The applicant has served 28 day imprisonment as a consequence of the imposition of the sentence. To my mind, that is an adequate punishment for the offence. I would not wish to be taken as saying that, had he come to be sentenced afresh without having served that term, that would be the sentence imposed. But seeing that he has served it, it seems to me that the appropriate order is to allow the application to set
011096 T2/RZB M/T COA239/96
aside the sentence imposed below to substitute a sentence of 28 days imprisonment, the effect of which as I understand it would be that the applicant is eligible for immediate release.

MACKENZIE J: I agree.
CULLINANE J: I agree.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Megson is an appeal against sentence in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant, Shane Glen Megson, pleaded guilty to producing cannabis sativa, with 96 plants involved. The dispute centred on the sentence imposed by the Magistrate, who handed down a four-month imprisonment term based on what was considered the norm by the Supreme Court for such matters, which ranged between two to four years. The court was required to decide whether the sentencing discretion miscarried due to the Magistrate's misunderstanding of the sentencing norm and whether non-custodial sentencing options were adequately considered.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate's understanding of the sentencing norm was incorrect. It was held that the norm did not necessarily equate to a two to four-year imprisonment term, and the Magistrate was within his rights to consider non-custodial sentencing options. The court emphasised that the applicant's criminal history, including previous offences related to the production of dangerous drugs, did not automatically preclude non-custodial sentencing options. Given that the applicant had already served 28 days in prison, the Court of Appeal deemed this term an adequate punishment for the offence.

In light of the above, the Court of Appeal granted the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The sentence of four months imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate was set aside, and a sentence of 28 days imprisonment was substituted. This decision would result in the applicant being eligible for immediate release, as he had already served the 28-day term.

R v Megson

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established