R v Neilson - [2014] QCA 221

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Neilson [2014] QCA 221

PARTIES:

R
v
NEILSON, Britt Candice
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 55 of 2014
SC No 638 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 August 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Alan Wilson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.     Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2.     Appeal against sentence allowed.

3.     Vary the sentence imposed by fixing a parole eligibility date at 10 March 2016.

4.      Otherwise confirm the sentence under appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant and her business partner ran a business trafficking wholesale amounts of methylamphetamine – where the applicant was adroit at running the business – where the applicant continued the business after the arrest of her business partner – where the applicant was arrested and charged with four counts under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – where the applicant pleaded guilty – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and six months – where a parole eligibility date was set after serving two years and six months – where the applicant became drug-addicted to cope with stress, including the death of her father and a controlling relationship – where the applicant became involved in the drug trade to support her habit – where the applicant has a four and a half year old son – where the applicant has good prospects of rehabilitation – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, considered
R v Barton[2006] QCA 367, considered
R v Clarke; ex parte Attorney-General (Queensland) (1996) 90 A Crim R 1; [1996] QCA 474, considered
R v Cottle-Pilides[2006] QCA 72, considered
R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, distinguished
R v Taylor[2006] QCA 459, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the applicant
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bernard Bradley & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Gotterson JA and the orders he proposes.

GOTTERSON JA: On 11 March 2014 in the Supreme Court at Brisbane, the applicant, Britt Candice Neilson, pleaded guilty to the following four drug-related counts:

Count 1: Between 30 May 2012 and 12 February 2013, at Brisbane and elsewhere in Queensland, carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine (a Schedule 1 drug);[1]
Count 2: On 21 February 2013, at Pimpama, unlawfully possessed the dangerous drug methylamphetamine;[2]
Count 3: On 21 February 2013, at Pimpama, had scales in her possession that she had used in connection…

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 Neilson

Details

AGLC: R v Neilson [2014] QCA 221
Case: [2014] QCA 221
Decision Date: 5 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, who was involved in a drug trafficking operation, appealed against her sentence. The appellant and her business partner were running a significant methylamphetamine trafficking business. After her partner's arrest, the appellant continued the business and was eventually arrested herself, charged with four counts under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven years and six months imprisonment, with parole eligibility set after two years and six months. The appellant argued that her sentence was manifestly excessive due to her addiction, which led to her involvement in the drug trade, and her prospects for rehabilitation. The appeal focused on whether the sentence was disproportionate.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the appellant's personal circumstances, including her addiction, the death of her father, and her prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to weigh these factors against the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The appellant's lawyer argued that the sentence was excessively harsh given her personal situation and potential for rehabilitation. The state, on the other hand, argued that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and was necessary to deter future drug trafficking.

The court found that the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive. It acknowledged the severity of her crime but also considered her personal circumstances, including her addiction, which was a result of personal tragedy and stress. The court emphasised the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and her role as a primary caregiver for her young child. The court concluded that a sentence of seven years and six months was disproportionate to the appellant's personal circumstances and her potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the parole eligibility date was varied to 10 March 2016. The remainder of the sentence was confirmed.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence was granted, the appeal against sentence was allowed, the parole eligibility date was set at 10 March 2016, and the rest of the sentence was confirmed. This decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the appellant's personal circumstances and prospects for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2. Appeal against sentence allowed.

3. Vary the sentence imposed by fixing a parole eligibility date at 10 March 2016.

4. Otherwise confirm the sentence under appeal.

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 Neilson [2014] QCA 221
PARTIES:	R v NEILSON, Britt Candice (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 55 of 2014 SC No 638 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 August 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Alan Wilson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 2. Appeal against sentence allowed. 3. Vary the sentence imposed by fixing a parole eligibility date at 10 March 2016. 4. Otherwise confirm the sentence under appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant and her business partner ran a business trafficking wholesale amounts of methylamphetamine – where the applicant was adroit at running the business – where the applicant continued the business after the arrest of her business partner – where the applicant was arrested and charged with four counts under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – where the applicant pleaded guilty – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and six months – where a parole eligibility date was set after serving two years and six months – where the applicant became drug-addicted to cope with stress, including the death of her father and a controlling relationship – where the applicant became involved in the drug trade to support her habit – where the applicant has a four and a half year old son – where the applicant has good prospects of rehabilitation – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, considered R v Barton[2006] QCA 367, considered R v Clarke; ex parte Attorney-General (Queensland) (1996) 90 A Crim R 1; [1996] QCA 474, considered R v Cottle-Pilides[2006] QCA 72, considered R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, distinguished R v Taylor[2006] QCA 459, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the applicant D R Kinsella for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bernard Bradley & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent