R v O'Connor - [2002] QCA 467

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v O’Connor [2002] QCA 467

PARTIES:

R
v
O’CONNOR, Ian Patrick
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 224 of 2002
SC No 538 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

1 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 November 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed
2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – CULTIVATION – TRAFFICKING – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant appeals against his conviction on one count of unlawfully trafficking in methylamphetamine and eight counts of supplying methylamphetamine – where appellant received seven and a half years’ imprisonment and seeks leave to appeal against that sentence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant contends that the convictions are unsafe and unsatisfactory – where the evidence against the appellant came substantially from two accomplices – where the appellant contended that his contact with the accomplices had an innocent explanation – where the appellant challenges the evidence of the accomplices because they received reduced sentences for their willingness to testify against the appellant – where the appellant laid emphasis on the contrary evidence adduced for the defence – whether or not a properly instructed jury, proceeding reasonably should have entertained a reasonable doubt – where questions of credibility of witnesses loomed large but where there was no compelling basis for concluding that the jury should, acting reasonably, have acquitted

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where consideration of R v Everett which demonstrated the sentence of 7 and a half years was appropriately within the sentencing range – where comparison made with co-accused’s sentence of four years suspended after 14 months but where the appellant and the co-accused’s circumstances differed enough for the disparity in sentence to stand

R v Everett [1999] QCA 14; CA 311 of 1998, 5 February 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

G Long for the appellant
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gardiners Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appellant appeals against his conviction on one count of carrying on the business of unlawful trafficking in methylamphetamine and eight counts of supplying methylamphetamine. For the trafficking he was sentenced to seven and a-half years' imprisonment. He also seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The ground of appeal against conviction is that the convictions are unsafe and unsatisfactory. The conviction for trafficking relates to activity over a…

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 O'Connor

Details

AGLC: R v O'Connor [2002] QCA 467
Case: [2002] QCA 467
Decision Date: 1 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in the case of R v O'Connor appealed against his conviction on one count of unlawfully trafficking in methylamphetamine and eight counts of supplying methylamphetamine. The appellant was sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment and sought leave to appeal against that sentence. The evidence against the appellant came substantially from two accomplices, who testified against him in exchange for reduced sentences. The appellant argued that his convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory, contending that his contact with the accomplices had an innocent explanation and that their testimony was unreliable due to the sentence reductions they received.

The court had to consider whether the jury, acting reasonably, should have entertained a reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt. The court acknowledged that questions of witness credibility were prominent but found no compelling basis to conclude that the jury should have acquitted the appellant. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The court also examined the sentence imposed, considering it appropriate within the sentencing range, despite the appellant’s co-accused receiving a lesser sentence. The differences in their circumstances justified the disparity.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court held that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable or unsustainable, and the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range. The appellant’s arguments regarding the accomplices’ credibility and the disparity in sentences did not provide a sufficient basis to overturn the conviction or the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed

2. 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v O’Connor [2002] QCA 467
PARTIES:	R v O’CONNOR, Ian Patrick (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 224 of 2002 SC No 538 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	1 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 November 2002
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – CULTIVATION – TRAFFICKING – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant appeals against his conviction on one count of unlawfully trafficking in methylamphetamine and eight counts of supplying methylamphetamine – where appellant received seven and a half years’ imprisonment and seeks leave to appeal against that sentence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant contends that the convictions are unsafe and unsatisfactory – where the evidence against the appellant came substantially from two accomplices – where the appellant contended that his contact with the accomplices had an innocent explanation – where the appellant challenges the evidence of the accomplices because they received reduced sentences for their willingness to testify against the appellant – where the appellant laid emphasis on the contrary evidence adduced for the defence – whether or not a properly instructed jury, proceeding reasonably should have entertained a reasonable doubt – where questions of credibility of witnesses loomed large but where there was no compelling basis for concluding that the jury should, acting reasonably, have acquitted CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where consideration of R v Everett which demonstrated the sentence of 7 and a half years was appropriately within the sentencing range – where comparison made with co-accused’s sentence of four years suspended after 14 months but where the appellant and the co-accused’s circumstances differed enough for the disparity in sentence to stand R v Everett [1999] QCA 14; CA 311 of 1998, 5 February 1999, considered
COUNSEL:	G Long for the appellant D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gardiners Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent