R v Morris

[1995] QCA 126

COURT OF APPEAL

[1995] QCA 126

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA

BYRNE J

CA No 519 of 1994
THE QUEEN
v.

KENNETH GRAEME MORRIS

BRISBANE
..DATE 17/03/95
DAVIES J: The applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court
at Cleveland on 21 November last year on two relevant offences,
one of production of a dangerous drug namely cannabis and the
other was possession of that drug, those offences having been
committed on 1 and 2 November last year. The applicant was
sentenced to $400 fine in respect of each of those. The
applicant who pleaded guilty to those offences is 26 years of
age, having been born on 16 February 1968.

He has already accumulated several previous convictions involving cannabis, though none since 1988. He was convicted in 1986 of possession of cannabis and smoking Indian hemp and fined $300. He was convicted in 1988 of administering a prohibited drug and convicted and fined $100. And he was convicted of some other offences also in 1988. The circumstances of this offence were that pursuant to a search warrant police entered premises and found the applicant and some others in those premises.

They found three plastic clipseal bags containing cannabis together with 29 seeds in an ashtray on the coffee table in the house of which the applicant admitted ownership. Some further search revealed a plastic water pipe, a set of scales, a parsley grinder and a large plastic clipseal bag containing numerous small clipseal bags. The applicant said that he had purchased the cannabis for his own use. He said that he used the cannabis as a pain killer because he had severe back pain resulting from a medical condition.

He was, in fact, on a disability pension from which he received some income. The explanation which the applicant gave may be doubted having regard to the number of small clipseal bags and the set of scales which were present in the premises. But even accepting the explanation which the applicant gave, in my view the sentences which were imposed, that is the fines which were imposed, were not outside the range of a sound sentencing discretion.

Indeed, Mr Alcorn, who appeared for the applicant, found it difficult to suggest an appropriate sentence or appropriate sentences which could have been imposed which were less severe than those which the learned sentencing Magistrate imposed. I would, in consequence, refuse the application for leave to appeal.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.

BYRNE J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

-----