R v Mullins - [2007] QCA 418

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mullins [2007] QCA 418

PARTIES:

R
v
MULLINS, Natasha Ormsby
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 202 of 2007
SC No 676 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 November 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Daubney J
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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving 15 months – whether head sentence manifestly excessive – whether sentence reflected special leniency to which applicant entitled because of confession to trafficking in absence of other evidence

R v Scott [2006] QCA 76; CA No 6 of 2006, 20 March 2006, considered

R v Tytherleigh [2006] QCA 193; CA No 15 of 2006, 5 June 2006, considered

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan SC for the applicant
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Keane JA.

KEANE JA:
On 2 August 2007, the applicant was convicted, on her plea of guilty to an ex officio indictment, of one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa, one count of possessing cannabis sativa, one count of possessing methylamphetamine and one count of possessing things for use in connection with trafficking. On the trafficking charge, she was sentenced to four years imprisonment with parole eligibility fixed at 2 November 2008, ie after serving

15 months in actual custody. She was sentenced to shorter concurrent terms for the other offences.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the four year sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the offences

The trafficking charge related to the period between 1 July 2005 and 27 January 2006. At about 5.00 pm on 26 January 2006, police executed a search warrant at her residence. They found small quantities of cannabis (6.4 grams) and white powder (0.21 grams) containing methylamphetamine. Police also found a set of scales, clip seal bags, spoon set, mobile phone and two pipes.

The applicant told police that, over the previous seven months, she supplied between eight and 10 people on a weekly basis with small amounts of amphetamine ranging from 0.1 grams for $20 to 0.5 grams for $100. She also said that she supplied two people with cannabis in the form of a "stick" (1.7 grams) for $25.

On 4 October 2006, the…

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 Mullins

Details

AGLC: R v Mullins [2007] QCA 418
Case: [2007] QCA 418
Decision Date: 23 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mullins involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa. The applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving 15 months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the head sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentence did not reflect the special leniency to which he was entitled due to his confession in the absence of other evidence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence adequately reflected the special leniency that should be afforded to the applicant for his early confession. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing in light of the applicant's guilty plea and the nature of the offences.

In assessing the application, the court determined that the sentence did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and took into account the mitigating factor of the applicant's early confession. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate and did not require any adjustment. Accordingly, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

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 Mullins [2007] QCA 418
PARTIES:	R v MULLINS, Natasha Ormsby (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 202 of 2007 SC No 676 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 November 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Daubney J 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving 15 months – whether head sentence manifestly excessive – whether sentence reflected special leniency to which applicant entitled because of confession to trafficking in absence of other evidence R v Scott [2006] QCA 76; CA No 6 of 2006, 20 March 2006, considered R v Tytherleigh [2006] QCA 193; CA No 15 of 2006, 5 June 2006, considered
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan SC for the applicant M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent