R v Mills - [2021] QCA 59

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mills [2021] QCA 59

PARTIES:

R
v
MILLS, Andrew Gareth
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 302 of 2020
SC No 1709 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 20 July 2020 (Bond J)

DELIVERED ON:

29 March 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2021

JUDGES:

Fraser, McMurdo and Mullins JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to possessing the dangerous drug methylamphetamine in excess of two grams – where the sentencing judge found that the applicant’s purpose in possessing the methylamphetamine was partially commercial – where the applicant was a heavy drug user – where the applicant possessed a large amount of methylamphetamine with a high level of purity – where the applicant could not explain the source of a large sum of money found in his possession on the day that the police executed the search warrant – whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the possession of the methylamphetamine was held partly for a commercial purpose

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C

R v Carrall[2018] QCA 355, cited
R v Strbak[2019] QCA 42, cited
Strbak v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 494; [2020] HCA 10, cited

COUNSEL:

C F C Wilson for the applicant
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bell Dore Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins JA and the order proposed by her Honour.
McMURDO JA: I agree with Mullins JA.
MULLINS JA: Mr Mills pleaded guilty to possessing the dangerous drug methylamphetamine in excess of two grams (count 1), possessing the dangerous drug 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine in excess of two grams (count 2), possessing the dangerous drug 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (count 3), possessing the dangerous drug cocaine (count 4), possessing the dangerous drug heroin (count 5), possessing a relevant substance 1,4-butanediol (count 6) and possessing a relevant substance 4-hydroxybutanoic acid lactone (count 7). The offences were all committed on 19 March 2019.
The prosecution had alleged that the possession of the methylamphetamine was for a commercial purpose and that was disputed by Mr Mills. He gave evidence at the sentencing hearing. The learned sentencing judge found that possession of the methylamphetamine was for a commercial purpose. The sentencing judge accepted that the possession was not solely for a commercial purpose, as it was also for personal use as Mr Mills was a heavy drug user.
Mr Mills was sentenced on 20 July 2020 to imprisonment for three years for count 1, imprisonment for two years for count 2, and imprisonment for six months for each of the other counts. A parole release date was fixed at 16 April 2021 which was after Mr Mills served nine months, taking into…

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 Mills

Details

AGLC: R v Mills [2021] QCA 59
Case: [2021] QCA 59
Decision Date: 29 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mills involved the appellant, Mills, who pleaded guilty to possessing methylamphetamine in excess of two grams. The sentencing judge found that Mills’ possession of the drug was partially for commercial purposes, leading to an appeal against the sentence. Mills argued that the judge erred in concluding that his possession was partly commercial. The appeal was heard by the court which had to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that Mills' possession of methylamphetamine was held partly for a commercial purpose.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the amount and purity of the methylamphetamine found, the digital scales and clip seal bags, and the automatic money counting machine. Mills argued that he was a heavy drug user who bought large quantities of methylamphetamine for personal use, but the court noted that the amount and purity suggested a commercial aspect. The court also considered Mills' inability to explain the source of a large sum of money found on him, which Mills attributed to a loan for legal fees. Mills' financial records, including his income from taxable and non-taxable sources, were also reviewed.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in concluding that Mills' possession of methylamphetamine was partly for commercial purposes. The quantity and purity of the drug, the presence of packaging materials, and the unexplained sum of money supported a commercial inference. Mills' explanations for these factors were not entirely satisfactory to the court, leading to the conclusion that the sentencing judge's findings were supported by the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

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

The police located on top of Mr Mills’ bedside table, and seized, a set of digital scales and a quantity of small clip seal bags. They located and seized an automatic money counting machine in the kitchen pantry. At the conclusion of the search, Mr Mills participated in a record of interview (exhibit 8) in which he said that he borrowed money from a person “during Christmas to pay for my solicitor’s bills” and that it was a “documented loan”. He said he owed the loan shark $20,000 in principal and $2,000 in interest.Mr Mills’ evidence Mr Mills’ evidence-in-chief included the following. He produced his notices of assessment for years ended 30 June 2018 and 2019 that showed he respectively had taxable incomes of $132,579 and $173,441 and, in addition, he earned income that was not taxable in Australia from HiFX, as a result of buying and selling US currency. At the time the search warrant was executed, he predominantly used ice and GBL. He used the GBL to sleep and he used the “ice” to keep up with day to day life. He had two young children for whom he was the fulltime carer and one of whom had a medical issue. During the week he would be working from 6 am until about 11 pm taking calls and on the weekend he would work anywhere from between 7 am until 5 pm. He was using the methylamphetamine daily and anywhere from 1.75 to 3 grams. He purchased the methylamphetamine of which he was found in possession in early February or late January 2019 for himself. He spent about $14,000 or $15,000 on the purchase. He purchased a large amount as he wanted to be able to have it there when he needed it and he did not have time in his schedule to go out to find it. Purchasing a large quantity makes it cheaper. He would purchase the quantity he needed every couple of months. He had put together the sum of $22,100 to pay out the loan that he had from the loan shark. He had obtained the loan of $20,000 around Christmas 2018, but could not remember what the purpose of the loan was for. He said it could have been for anything. When reminded that he had told police that it was for legal bills, he said that “It would have been to pay partial fees … for the solicitor”. Mr Mills confirmed the entry in his bank statement (exhibit 10) for 11 December 2018 for a credit of $20,000 that was described as “Transfer From Oz Dairy Private Loan” was the proceeds of the loan. The interest was $1,000 per week and the sum of $22,110 was all to be repaid to the lender, as he was $3,000 to $4,000 behind in payments. Mr Mills could show from another statement in exhibit 10 that he repaid the loan by a payment made of $23,000 on 1 April 2019 and explained that the deposit to the same account of $20,000 came from his business account into which his employer deposited money. Mr Mills explained that he had the small packets of clip seal bags and the scales for shooting up, as he would use the scales to proportion out how much he wanted to inject and use the bag to mix up the drug with water before injecting the ice. The money counter was in the storeroom in the kitchen and packaged up with a lot of other items that Mr Mills had not unpacked from when he moved to that address at least six months earlier. The cardboard box in which the money counter was found was taped closed. He had bought the money counter about a year prior to the move for the novelty. He purchased it from Wish online.

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 Mills [2021] QCA 59
PARTIES:	R v MILLS, Andrew Gareth (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 302 of 2020 SC No 1709 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 20 July 2020 (Bond J)
DELIVERED ON:	29 March 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 March 2021
JUDGES:	Fraser, McMurdo and Mullins JJA
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to possessing the dangerous drug methylamphetamine in excess of two grams – where the sentencing judge found that the applicant’s purpose in possessing the methylamphetamine was partially commercial – where the applicant was a heavy drug user – where the applicant possessed a large amount of methylamphetamine with a high level of purity – where the applicant could not explain the source of a large sum of money found in his possession on the day that the police executed the search warrant – whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the possession of the methylamphetamine was held partly for a commercial purpose Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C R v Carrall[2018] QCA 355, cited R v Strbak[2019] QCA 42, cited Strbak v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 494; [2020] HCA 10, cited
COUNSEL:	C F C Wilson for the applicant D Nardone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bell Dore Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent