SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Morrison [2020] QCA 187
PARTIES:
R
v
MORRISON, Karl Michael
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 238 of 2019
DC No 2609 of 2017
DC No 1911 of 2019
DC No 1913 of 2019
DC No 64 of 2018
DC No 2120 of 2018
DC No 1901 of 2019
DC No 1938 of 2019DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 August 2019 (Rafter SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:
4 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 July 2020
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and Philippides JA and Davis J
ORDER:
The application is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where, on the first indictment, the applicant was convicted of 11 charges of supplying a dangerous drug – where, on the second indictment, the applicant was convicted of five counts against the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), one count against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) and one count against the Criminal Code (Qld) – where, on the third indictment, the applicant was convicted of three counts of importing tier 2 goods contrary to the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and one count against the Weapons Act – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years and six months with a parole eligibility date after 18 months on the first indictment – where that sentence commences after the sentences on the second and third indictments expire – where the longest sentence imposed on the charges in the second and third indictments was two and a half years imprisonment to be served wholly in a corrective services facility – where that sentence was the mandatory minimum that could be imposed under the Weapons Act – where the applicant submits that the accumulation of the sentences made the overall sentence excessive – where the applicant submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive when compared to other related offenders – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried – whether the sentences were manifestly excessive
Criminal Code (Qld), s 433
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 9
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 29
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 91
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 5, s 50, s 50B, sch 2Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43; [2011] VSCA 372, considered
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited
Broederlow v Commissioner of Police [2019] QDC 228, not followed
Campbell v Galea [2019] QDC 53, followed
Commissioner of Police v Broederlow[2020] QCA 161, followed
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, followed
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
Mill v…
Continue reading R v Morrison
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Morrison [2020] QCA 187
- Case
- [2020] QCA 187
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the submissions made by the appellant and considered the circumstances of the case. The appellant was not charged with trafficking but was nonetheless sentenced as part of a trafficking syndicate. The sentencing judge had taken into account the relevant factors, including the severity of the appellant's involvement and the sentences imposed on other syndicate members. The court found that the sentences imposed were within the range of a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion and were not manifestly excessive.
The court rejected the appellant's submissions and held that the sentencing judge had not erred in imposing the sentences. The court considered that the sentences were appropriate given the appellant's involvement in the syndicate and the quantities of drugs supplied. The court also noted that the sentences were not manifestly excessive when compared to the sentences imposed on other offenders involved in similar activities. The court held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the sentences were manifestly excessive or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
The application for leave to appeal against the sentences was refused. The court found no error in the sentencing judge's approach and held that the sentences imposed were appropriate and within the range of a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is 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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The applicant filed written submissions which attached two annexures. He made six submissions:(a)He was sentenced on the basis that he was part of the trafficking syndicate of Corke, Stirling and Smyth when he, the applicant, was not charged with trafficking.(b)His overall sentence is excessive when compared to the sentences imposed on each of Corke, Stirling, Smyth and Aislabie.(c)The comparatives which were cited during his sentencing were not relevant because they concerned persons who were convicted of trafficking.(d)The accumulation of the sentences imposed on the second and third indictments made the overall sentence excessive.(e)There was no legal requirement to impose the statutory minimum of two and a half years on the count of supplying a category H weapon.(f)The Human Rights Act 2019 ought to be taken into account on the appeal.Consideration of the applicant’s submissionsThe applicant was sentenced as part of a trafficking syndicate when he was not charged with trafficking The learned sentencing judge understood that Corke, Stirling, Smyth and Aislabie were all convicted of trafficking. In a passage in the sentencing remarks which is relevant to each of the first three submissions made by the applicant, his Honour said:“All counsel made reference to a number of comparable decisions. The comparable cases referred to by counsel provide a yardstick. Some of the cases related to trafficking in cannabis. The sentences imposed in the cases of the other syndicate members are relevant although, as I have already said, in each case the offenders were sentenced for trafficking. However, the circumstances of each case do require consideration. For instance, in the case of Brendon Aislabie, he had a minor and irrelevant criminal history. The total amount of cannabis involved was 154 pounds over a three to four week period. Your case is more serious than that. At the other end of the scale is the syndicate member Justin Corke who received a notional head sentence of nine and a-half years imprisonment. That case is significantly more serious than yours.”[31] (emphasis added)[31]ARB page 163. In the agreed statement of facts, this was said:“In July of 2013 police commenced an operation in order to target members of a syndicate involved in the importation and distribution of cannabis in the Brisbane, Gold Coast and Mackay areas.Lawfully intercepted information (LII) revealed that hundreds of kilograms of cannabis was being imported from Victoria, and up to 300 pounds of cannabis was being sold in Queensland each week.The defendant was detected sourcing large amounts of cannabis from Justin Adam Corke, Matthew Stirling and Matthew Smyth, members of the syndicate. He then supplied the cannabis to a person whose details are unknown.In total, on eleven occasions between 18 February and 23 March 2014, the defendant sourced and then supplied 435 pounds (197.313 kg) of cannabis to another person. He paid between $2500 and $3400 per pound, for a total value of between $1,087,500 and $1,479,000.”[32] (emphasis added)[32]ARB page 264.