R v Mustafa - [2006] QCA 231

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mustafa [2006] QCA 231

PARTIES:

R
v
MUSTAFA, Altou
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 95 of 2006
SC No 245 of 2006
SC No 103 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

21 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2006

JUDGES:

Williams, Keane and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application 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 - applicant convicted on plea of guilty of one count of unlawfully trafficking heroin, cannabis sativa and cocaine, one count of unlawfully supplying cocaine to another person, one count of unlawful possession of heroin, one count of unlawful possession of cannabis sativa, one count of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine, one count of unlawful possession of methadone - sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the trafficking and to lesser concurrent terms for other offences - applicant involved in businesslike efficient trafficking on a grand scale - applicant dependent on heroin - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111, considered
R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, cited
R v Do [2000] QCA 135; CA No 342 of 1999, 14 April 2000, considered
R v George [2001] QCA 135; CA No 339 of 2000, 6 April 2001, cited
R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359; CA No 229 of 2004, 29 September 2004, cited
R v Robinson and Stokes; ex parte A-G [2000] 2 Qd R 413, cited
R v Tran [2006] QCA 174; CA No 60 of 2006, 26 May 2006, cited
R v Truong and Nguyen [2001] QCA 98; CA No 278 and CA No 308 of 2000, 15 March 2000, cited
York v R (2005) 221 ALR 541, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Moynihan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA: On 17 March 2006, the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of one count of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drugs, heroin, cannabis and cocaine, one count of unlawfully supplying the dangerous drug cocaine to another person, one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug heroin, one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug cannabis, one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine and one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methadone.

He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the offence of trafficking and to lesser concurrent terms in respect of the other offences, including seven years imprisonment for the offence of supplying a dangerous drug to another person.

The applicant…

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 Mustafa

Details

AGLC: R v Mustafa [2006] QCA 231
Case: [2006] QCA 231
Decision Date: 21 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mustafa, the applicant, appealed against the sentence imposed by the court following his conviction on multiple drug-related charges, including trafficking, supply, and possession. The court was tasked with determining whether the 12-year imprisonment term, along with concurrent lesser terms for other offences, was manifestly excessive. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court considered relevant precedents, including AB v The Queen, R v Do, R v George, R v Raciti, R v Robinson and Stokes; ex parte A-G, R v Tran, R v Truong and Nguyen, and York v R.

The court examined the nature of the applicant's involvement in the drug trafficking activities, which were described as businesslike and efficient on a grand scale. The court also considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including his dependence on heroin. In light of the legal principles and the precedents, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and took into account the applicant's role and personal circumstances. Therefore, the application to reduce the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Mustafa [2006] QCA 231
PARTIES:	R v MUSTAFA, Altou (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 95 of 2006 SC No 245 of 2006 SC No 103 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	21 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 June 2006
JUDGES:	Williams, Keane and Holmes JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application 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 - applicant convicted on plea of guilty of one count of unlawfully trafficking heroin, cannabis sativa and cocaine, one count of unlawfully supplying cocaine to another person, one count of unlawful possession of heroin, one count of unlawful possession of cannabis sativa, one count of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine, one count of unlawful possession of methadone - sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for the trafficking and to lesser concurrent terms for other offences - applicant involved in businesslike efficient trafficking on a grand scale - applicant dependent on heroin - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111, considered R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, cited R v Do [2000] QCA 135; CA No 342 of 1999, 14 April 2000, considered R v George [2001] QCA 135; CA No 339 of 2000, 6 April 2001, cited R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359; CA No 229 of 2004, 29 September 2004, cited R v Robinson and Stokes; ex parte A-G [2000] 2 Qd R 413, cited R v Tran [2006] QCA 174; CA No 60 of 2006, 26 May 2006, cited R v Truong and Nguyen [2001] QCA 98; CA No 278 and CA No 308 of 2000, 15 March 2000, cited York v R (2005) 221 ALR 541, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Moynihan for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent