R v Minniecon - [2017] QCA 29

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Minniecon [2017] QCA 29

PARTIES:

R
v
MINNIECON, Jay Nigel Raymond
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 196 of 2016
DC No 186 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 8 July 2016

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2017

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison and Philip McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in cannabis – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant’s addiction – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge failed to adequately take into account the applicant’s limited life expectancy –whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Brienza[2010] QCA 15, distinguished
R v Budd[2012] QCA 120, distinguished
R v Cairns[2011] QCA 145, distinguished
R v Johnson[2007] QCA 433, distinguished
R v Lammonde[2007] QCA 75, distinguished
R v Leith [2000] 1 Qd R 660; [1998] QCA 320, explained
R v Tez[2007] QCA 227, distinguished
R v Whyte[2003] QCA 56, distinguished

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the applicant
D Balic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: The applicant, Jay Nigel Raymond Minniecon, pleaded guilty to each count on a nine-count indictment at the District Court in Townsville on 26 February 2016. The offences alleged in the respective counts were:

Count 1

An offence against s 5 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) (“DMA”) of unlawfully trafficking in cannabis between 21 June 2012 and 14 March 2013

Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 7
Offences against s 9 DMA of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug:

·   Methylamphetamine on 22 June 2012;

·   Cannabis on 12 October 2012;

·   Cannabis exceeding 500 grams on 7 November 2012;

·   Methylamphetamine on 13 March 2013;

·   Cannabis on 13 March 2013

Counts 3, 8
Offences against s 10(1)(b) DMA of possession of things used in connection with trafficking:

·   A mobile phone on 22 June 2012;

·   A mobile phone and three sets of digital scales on 13 March 2013

Count 9
An offence against s 10(1)(a) DMA of possession of things used in connection with trafficking:

·   A quantity of clipseal bags and three small plastic containers on 13 March 2013.

All offences were alleged to have been committed at Townsville.

At a sentence hearing in the District…

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 Minniecon

Details

AGLC: R v Minniecon [2017] QCA 29
Case: [2017] QCA 29
Decision Date: 10 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Minniecon involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The applicant had pleaded guilty to trafficking in cannabis and was sentenced to five years in prison. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, claiming that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's addiction and limited life expectancy.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive and whether the judge failed to take into account the applicant's addiction and limited life expectancy. The court considered the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances of the applicant.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's addiction and limited life expectancy. The court held that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offence, and that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion in a manner that was not unreasonable. The court found that the applicant's addiction and limited life expectancy were relevant factors, but did not necessarily warrant a reduction in sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not amount to a manifest excess.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion in a manner that was not unreasonable. The court held that the applicant's addiction and limited life expectancy were relevant factors, but did not necessarily warrant a reduction in sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not amount to a manifest excess.

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.

CITATION:	R v Minniecon [2017] QCA 29
PARTIES:	R v MINNIECON, Jay Nigel Raymond (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 196 of 2016 DC No 186 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 8 July 2016
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2017
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison and Philip McMurdo JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in cannabis – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant’s addiction – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge failed to adequately take into account the applicant’s limited life expectancy –whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited R v Brienza[2010] QCA 15, distinguished R v Budd[2012] QCA 120, distinguished R v Cairns[2011] QCA 145, distinguished R v Johnson[2007] QCA 433, distinguished R v Lammonde[2007] QCA 75, distinguished R v Leith [2000] 1 Qd R 660; [1998] QCA 320, explained R v Tez[2007] QCA 227, distinguished R v Whyte[2003] QCA 56, distinguished
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC for the applicant D Balic for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

Count 1	An offence against s 5 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) (“DMA”) of unlawfully trafficking in cannabis between 21 June 2012 and 14 March 2013
Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 7	Offences against s 9 DMA of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug: · Methylamphetamine on 22 June 2012; · Cannabis on 12 October 2012; · Cannabis exceeding 500 grams on 7 November 2012; · Methylamphetamine on 13 March 2013; · Cannabis on 13 March 2013
Counts 3, 8	Offences against s 10(1)(b) DMA of possession of things used in connection with trafficking: · A mobile phone on 22 June 2012; · A mobile phone and three sets of digital scales on 13 March 2013
Count 9	An offence against s 10(1)(a) DMA of possession of things used in connection with trafficking: · A quantity of clipseal bags and three small plastic containers on 13 March 2013.