R v P - [2004] QCA 365

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v P [2004] QCA 365

PARTIES:

R
v
P

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 177 of 2004

SC No 36 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 October 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, White J, Cullinane J

Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1. Appeal allowed;

2. Vary the sentence imposed on the applicant by reducing it from nine to six years imprisonment and recommending that he be considered for parole after serving two years and six months of that sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG OFFENCES – SENTENCING – whether sentence imposed on applicant for trafficking in Schedule 2 drugs manifestly excessive

R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183, considered
R v Christensen [2002] QCA 113, considered
R v Corrigan [2001] QCA 251, cited

R v Le; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 392, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the applicant

R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Price & Roobottom for the applicant
DPP (Qld) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 17 March 2004, the applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court at Brisbane to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs (ecstasy and cannabis), four counts of supplying a dangerous drug, two counts of receiving or possessing property obtained from trafficking, five counts of possessing a dangerous drugs, two of which had a circumstance of aggravation, and two counts of possessing things used in connection with trafficking in a dangerous drug. For count one, trafficking, the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after four years. He was given lesser terms of imprisonment, all of which were to be served concurrently for the remaining offences. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs over a six month period from August 2002 to February 2003. The principal evidence against the applicant was of four supplies of ecstasy by the applicant to an undercover police officer working on the Gold Coast (counts 3-6). It was the applicant who on 27 January 2003 initiated contact by sending a mobile phone message to the undercover police officer, which said “I’m a friend of Lisa, she said that you might need some. Give us a call and we can catch up”. The next day the applicant and the police officer met at a coffee shop. During the course of their discussion, the applicant told the police officer that he earned $3,000 a week from dealing drugs including cannabis, ecstasy and speed. He further stated that he had sold 1,000 ecstasy pills over Christmas and that he regularly sold them at a nightclub in Broadbeach and at the Big Day Out, a concert that young people attend. He said that he had two suppliers above him in the chain of distribution, but that he also set up suppliers below him to sell…

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 P

Details

AGLC: R v P [2004] QCA 365
Case: [2004] QCA 365
Decision Date: 8 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v P was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant, P, had been convicted of trafficking in Schedule 2 drugs, specifically cocaine. He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. P appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The High Court was required to determine whether the sentence was unjust and disproportionate to the offence committed.

The central legal issue was the proportionality of the sentence imposed on P. The court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the relevant statutory framework and established sentencing principles. The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, P’s criminal history, and the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences. It also assessed the balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in the context of P's case.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and consistency in sentencing. It highlighted that while drug trafficking is a serious offence, the sentence should reflect the individual circumstances of the offender and ensure it does not exceed what is necessary for the aims of justice. The court concluded that a sentence of six years imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving two years and six months, was more appropriate. This decision underscored the need for courts to carefully consider the specifics of each case when determining an appropriate sentence.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed and that the sentence imposed on P be varied. The sentence was reduced from nine to six years imprisonment, with the recommendation that P be considered for parole after serving two years and six months. This outcome reflected the court's determination that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and failed to achieve the necessary balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed;

2. Vary the sentence imposed on the applicant by reducing it from nine to six years imprisonment and recommending that he be considered for parole after serving two years and six months of that sentence.

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 P [2004] QCA 365
PARTIES:	R v P (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 177 of 2004 SC No 36 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 October 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 September 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, White J, Cullinane J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed; 2. Vary the sentence imposed on the applicant by reducing it from nine to six years imprisonment and recommending that he be considered for parole after serving two years and six months of that sentence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG OFFENCES – SENTENCING – whether sentence imposed on applicant for trafficking in Schedule 2 drugs manifestly excessive R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183, considered R v Christensen [2002] QCA 113, considered R v Corrigan [2001] QCA 251, cited R v Le; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 392, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the applicant R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Price & Roobottom for the applicant DPP (Qld) for the respondent