R v Morris

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 232

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA

PINCUS JA

CA No 101 of 1992

THE QUEEN

GLEN WILLIAM MORRIS

(Appellant)

BRISBANE
.. DATE 16/7/92
.. JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant applies for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed for a breach of probation. The history of the matter, so far as it is relevant, is this: he

was convicted in June 1989, having pleaded guilty to three

drug charges. One offence was of unlawfully producing a

dangerous drug stated in the Crown outline to be heroin,

unlawful possession of a dangerous drug stated in the Crown
outline to be morphine, and also then possession of items for
use in connection with the unlawful production of a dangerous

drug. On each count he was sentenced to serve six months

imprisonment which was combined with his being placed on

probation for three years. The remarks of the sentencing was a very exceptional case, but he clearly warned the applicant that if he committed any offence during the period of three years probation he could be brought back to Court and dealt with further for the three drug charges.

The applicant did breach his probation. On 13 April 1991 he
committed the further offences of breaking, entering and
stealing and unlawfully using a motor vehicle. He was
sentenced in respect of those matters on 9 August 1991 to
serve a term of three years imprisonment, concurrent in each
case. He was then brought back for the breach of the terms of
the probation which was involved in these further offences,
and on 6 March 1991 it was ordered that he serve six months
imprisonment cumulative on the sentences that he was currently
serving, that is the three year terms imposed on 9 August
1991.

Essentially the applicant’s plea to us involved our accepting that the Judge should not have imposed, in a practical sense, and additional penalty for the breach of probation. The Judge, however, who was sentencing for breach of probation, was quite entitled, in my view, to consider that some cumulative term - and only a brief one has been imposed - should in fact be imposed, so that some practical penalty should result from the breach.

I see no reason, in the circumstances, to interfere with that sentence and I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

_____

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Morris involved the appellant, Glen William Morris, who applied for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed for a breach of probation. The appellant was originally convicted in June 1989 on three drug charges, including the unlawful production of a dangerous drug, which was identified as heroin, unlawful possession of a dangerous drug identified as morphine, and possession of items for use in connection with the unlawful production of a dangerous drug. He was sentenced to serve six months imprisonment on each count, which was combined with being placed on probation for three years. The sentencing remarks emphasized that the case was exceptional, and the appellant was warned that any breach of probation could result in further consequences. The appellant breached his probation by committing further offences of breaking, entering, stealing, and unlawfully using a motor vehicle on 13 April 1991. He was sentenced on 9 August 1991 to serve a term of three years imprisonment for these offences, which were concurrent in each case. The court then addressed the breach of probation on 6 March 1991, ordering that the appellant serve an additional six months imprisonment, cumulative on the sentences already being served. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was based on the argument that the judge should not have imposed a practical penalty for the breach of probation. The court considered the issue of whether the judge was entitled to impose a cumulative term for the breach of probation, given that the breach resulted in additional offences being committed.

The court found that the judge was entitled to consider that a cumulative term should be imposed for the breach of probation, as some practical penalty should result from the breach. The court held that the imposition of a brief additional penalty for the breach of probation was justified and did not see any reason to interfere with the sentence imposed. The appeal was ultimately refused by the court. The judges agreed on the outcome, with Pincus JA and Davies JA concurring with the Chief Justice's reasoning. The final order was that the application for leave to appeal was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established