R v Newman - [2024] QCA 224

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Newman [2024] QCA 224

PARTIES:

R
v
NEWMAN, Samantha Jane
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 75 of 2024
SC No 797 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 March 2024 (Crowley J)

DELIVERED ON:

15 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 November 2024

JUDGES:

Flanagan and Boddice JJA and Bradley J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, eight counts of possessing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams, one count of possessing a thing for use in connection with possessing a dangerous drug and one summary charge of possessing utensils and pipes for use – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years on the trafficking count and convicted and not further punished in respect of the remaining counts – where the applicant’s trafficking was intense and involved multiple dangerous drugs – where the trafficking business was sophisticated – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v Abdullah[2023] QCA 189, cited
R v Smith[2018] QCA 228, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
R G Reid for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FLANAGAN JA: I agree with Boddice JA.
BODDICE JA: On 21 March 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, eight counts of possessing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams, one count of possessing a thing for use in connection with possessing a dangerous drug and one summary charge of possessing utensils and pipes for use.
The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years on the trafficking count, with parole eligibility fixed at 21 March 2026. The applicant was convicted and not further punished in respect of the remaining counts and the summary charge.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal her sentence. Should leave be granted, the sole ground is that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
To succeed on that ground, it must be established that the difference is such that there must have been a misapplication of principle, or that the sentence is “unreasonable or plainly unjust”.[1] It is not enough for the applicant to establish the sentence was different, or even markedly different, from sentences imposed in other matters.
[1]R v Abdullah [2023] QCA 189 at [28], citing Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at 538-539.
In my view, the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused, as…

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 Newman

Details

AGLC: R v Newman [2024] QCA 224
Case: [2024] QCA 224
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Newman, the applicant appealed against her sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant had pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs, possessing a dangerous drug, possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams, possessing a thing for use in connection with possessing a dangerous drug, and possessing utensils and pipes for use. She was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years on the trafficking count and convicted but not further punished in respect of the remaining counts. The applicant submitted that her trafficking was for a significantly shorter period than other cases and that her sentence should be reduced, taking into account her mitigating factors and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. The court examined the nature and circumstances of the applicant’s trafficking, including its intensity, the multiple dangerous drugs involved, and the sophistication of the trafficking business. The court also considered the applicant's mitigating factors, such as her abstinence from drug use since arrest and her prospects for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had properly considered these factors and that the sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving 2 years, was neither unreasonable nor unjust. The sentence was within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion and appropriately balanced the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court found no misapplication of sentencing principles and held that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The decision emphasised the importance of general deterrence and denunciation in cases of drug trafficking, given the harm such activities cause to the community. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the applicant’s offending and appropriately balanced the mitigating factors with the need for punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence 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

By contrast, whilst the applicant’s trafficking was for a shorter period, it was intense and involved multiple dangerous drugs, routinely advertised broadly through SnapChat, affording the applicant a wide customer base.Conclusion The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It was neither unreasonable nor unjust. There was no misapplication of sentencing principles.Order I would order that the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused. BRADLEY J: I agree with the reasons of Boddice JA and concur with the order proposed by his Honour.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The sentencing judge accepted that the applicant had not been using drugs since her arrest and that the applicant had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.Consideration The applicant submits that a consideration of her mitigating factors, including abstinence from drug use, her struggle with substance abuse and the effect of her disorders, and the fact that the applicant had been in the community on bail for a significant period without any breach or relapse, supported a conclusion that a head sentence of 4 to 5 years’ imprisonment was a just and reasonable sentence, thereby allowing the applicant’s sentence to be suspended after serving 12 months in custody. Whilst the applicant did have a number of mitigating factors, the sentencing judge carefully considered those mitigating factors, whilst determining what was an appropriate sentence. The sentencing judge rightly found that notwithstanding those mitigating factors, the seriousness of the applicant’s offending meant that denunciation and deterrence loomed large. There was no misapplication of principle in that conclusion. Trafficking in dangerous drugs causes misery and harm within the community. Such conduct must be denounced through the imposition of penalties that would deter others. General deterrence and denunciation were to be given specific significant weight in determining the applicant’s sentence, as her offending was motivated by financial reward. The nature and circumstances of the applicant’s trafficking also supports a conclusion that the sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving 2 years’ imprisonment, fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. The applicant’s trafficking business was engaged over approximately six months, with a frequency of sales in the context of well-orchestrated advertising of that business. The trafficking was conducted as a commercial enterprise with the applicant being involved in all aspects of the business, including delivery of the goods. There was a degree of sophistication in the business-like model. Whilst the applicant was a user of drugs, her offending went well beyond supporting her own habit. It was motivated by financial reward. The applicant submitted that the sentence imposed was excessive, having regard to a number of single judge decisions. However, little assistance is gained from a consideration of such decisions. Each involves an exercise of a sentencing discretion, in particular circumstances. Whether a sentence can properly be said to be unreasonable or plainly unjust, requires a consideration of comparable decisions of this Court. Regard had to such decisions, supports a conclusion that the sentence imposed on the applicant could not be said to be different to sentences imposed in comparable cases.[2][2]R v Smith [2018] QCA 228 (Smith); R v Byrne [2020] QCA 173; R v Ada [2022] QCA 114; R v DAC [2023] QCA 53. The applicant submitted that Smith supported her submission that the sentence was unreasonable, as that sentence involved trafficking for a period of in excess of 16 months, whereas her trafficking was for a significantly shorter period.

CITATION:	R v Newman [2024] QCA 224
PARTIES:	R v NEWMAN, Samantha Jane (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 75 of 2024 SC No 797 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 March 2024 (Crowley J)
DELIVERED ON:	15 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 November 2024
JUDGES:	Flanagan and Boddice JJA and Bradley J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, eight counts of possessing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams, one count of possessing a thing for use in connection with possessing a dangerous drug and one summary charge of possessing utensils and pipes for use – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years on the trafficking count and convicted and not further punished in respect of the remaining counts – where the applicant’s trafficking was intense and involved multiple dangerous drugs – where the trafficking business was sophisticated – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited R v Abdullah[2023] QCA 189, cited R v Smith[2018] QCA 228, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf R G Reid for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent