R v Morcus

[2003] QCA 279

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Morcus [2003] QCA 279
PARTIES:	R v MORCUS, Alfonse John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 113 of 2003 SC No 482 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	8 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 July 2003
JUDGES:	Davies, Williams and Jerrard 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 – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CHARACTER OF OFFENCE – DRUG OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of production, trafficking and possession of cannabis and possession of money obtained from trafficking – where sentenced to six years and six months imprisonment – where applicant young – where early plea of guilty and high level of cooperation – whether learned trial judge should have made a recommendation for early release on parole – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive
R v Holt, Marino & Marino, unreported Supreme Court of Queensland, 3 February 2003, referred to R v Parsons & Sanders [1999] QCA 402; CA No 110 of 1999, CA No 129 of 1999, 24 September 1999, distinguished
COUNSEL:	J D Griffiths for the applicant R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

DAVIES JA: I will ask Justice Williams to deliver his reasons first.

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 19th of

March 2003 to four counts on the indictment presented against	10
him. He pleaded guilty to production of cannabis in excess of 500 grams, trafficking in cannabis, possession of cannabis and possession of money obtained from trafficking.
He was sentenced to six years and six months' imprisonment on	20
the trafficking count, a six month concurrent sentence for the possession of money and no additional penalty was imposed on the other counts. Two days pre-sentence custody was taken into account.
30
He seeks leave to appeal against the sentence, primarily
submitting that the sentence is manifestly excessive because
of the failure of the learned sentencing Judge to make a
recommendation for early release on parole to reflect his age,
personal antecedents, early plea of guilty and level of	40
cooperation.
The material before the Court discloses that following the
receipt of information, police went to three parcels of land
owned by the applicant. There they saw all the signs of large	50
scale trafficking and production of cannabis. When police arrived, they found a complex irrigation system, drying sheds and other equipment. There was evidence of crops having been harvested. Approximately 152 kilograms of cannabis was found
60
in various containers. Paperwork consistent with the business of trafficking was found.
As the learned sentencing Judge said in the course of her
sentencing remarks, "The applicant was engaged in a large	10
scale cannabis production and trafficking." He was aged 57 at the time of arrest and had no previous convictions. It was accepted, as already noted, that the pleas of guilty were timely entered.
20
The learned sentencing Judge, in the course of her sentencing remarks, referred to the decision of this Court in Parsons, CA No 110 of 1999 and the sentence imposed by Justice Byrne on Marino, SC No 559 of 2002, sentence imposed 3 February 2003.
30
In Parsons, the sentence imposed was eight years' imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole after three and a half years. Parsons had a significant criminal history, whereas, as noted, this applicant had none.
40
In Marino, the sentence imposed was six and a half years'
imprisonment. That matter related to trafficking over a
lengthy period of time. In my view, when all the matters are
taken into consideration, as is demonstrated by those
authorities, the sentence imposed here was well within range.	50
The operation was, as I have indicated, a commercial one and in those circumstances, in my view, it cannot be said that the
60
sentence was manifestly excessive. I would refuse leave to appeal against the sentence.
DAVIES JA: I agree.
10
JERRARD JA: I agree.
DAVIES JA: The order is as indicated by Justice Williams.

-----	20
30
40
50
60