R v Oprea

Case [2009] QCA 184

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Oprea [2009] QCA 184

PARTIES:

R
v
OPREA, Constantin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 271 of 2008
SC No 577 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 April 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Keane JA and Chesterman JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane and Chesterman JJA concurring as to the order made, McMurdo P dissenting

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant was convicted after a trial of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug – the applicant picked up a package containing 1,489.7 grams of pure cocaine from Palm Beach and delivered it to Crestmead – the applicant was sentenced after trial to 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and six months – during the trial the applicant made sensible admissions – the applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive considering he had only transitory possession of the cocaine and he was unaware of the quantity of cocaine in the package – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence recognised the applicant's limited cooperation

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 5.2(2), s 11.1, 307.6(1), s 314.4

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C

Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67, cited
R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44, cited
R v Chedid [1993] QCA 543, cited
R v Laurentiu and Becheru (1992) 63 A Crim R 402, considered
R v Mokoena [2009] QCA 36, considered
R v Otto (2005) 157 A Crim R 525; [2005] NSWCCA 333, cited
R v Thomas [1999] VSCA 204, cited
R v To (2007) 172 A Crim R 121; [2007] NSWCCA 200, cited
R v Tran (2007) 172 A Crim R 436; [2007] QCA 221, considered

COUNSEL:

M F McMillan (sol) for the applicant
G R Rice for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McMillan Criminal Law for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

  1. McMURDO P:  Unlike Keane JA and Chesterman JA, I would grant this application for leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal.  These are my reasons.

  1. The applicant, Constantin Oprea, was convicted after a three day trial of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, that was unlawfully imported.  His trial was shortened because of admissions he made at the trial, limiting the prosecution to proving the real issues in dispute.  He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and six months.  He originally appealed against his conviction and applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, but he has since abandoned his…

Continue reading R v Oprea

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Oprea [2009] QCA 184
Case
[2009] QCA 184
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted following a trial of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug. The applicant was found to have picked up a package containing 1,489.7 grams of pure cocaine from Palm Beach and subsequently delivered it to Crestmead. Following the trial, the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and six months. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given that he only had transitory possession of the cocaine and was unaware of the quantity contained in the package. The applicant also contended that the sentence did not recognise the limited cooperation he had shown during the trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant's role, his cooperation during the trial, and the sentencing principles applicable to cases involving border controlled drugs. The court had to weigh the gravity of the offence against the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence appropriately recognised the applicant's cooperation and admissions during the trial.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court acknowledged the significant quantity of cocaine involved but also recognised the applicant's limited role and lack of awareness regarding the exact amount. The court considered the applicant's cooperation and admissions during the trial, which were deemed sensible but did not warrant a substantial reduction in sentence. The court held that the sentence appropriately balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the mitigating factors presented. The court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the sentence.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal. The sentence imposed by the trial court was upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the offence and the applicant's role. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors when imposing sentences in drug-related cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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.