R v Parker - [2015] QCA 181

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Parker [2015] QCA 181

PARTIES:

R
v
PARKER, Dion Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 15 of 2015
SC No 517 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 20 January 2015

DELIVERED ON:

2 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2015

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Flanagan J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 an offence against s 5(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) in that, he carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years – where a declaration of a conviction of a serious violent offence was made pursuant to s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (“PS Act”) – where the applicant was in custody at the time of sentence – where the offending was committed while the applicant was on parole – where the sentence hearing proceeded on the footing that the applicant’s trafficking activity had taken place over a period of about six months – where s 156A(2) of the PS Act required that because the applicant offended while on parole, his sentence the subject of this application should be served cumulatively with his current sentence – where the sentence of eight years is to commence on 8 December 2015 – where there was no declarable time already served – where the learned sentencing judge took into account the serious violent offence declaration and fixed a parole eligibility date of 1 May 2022 pursuant to s 160D of the PS Act – where by 1 May 2022 the applicant will have served 80 per cent of his eight year sentence – where the applicant’s involvement in the trafficking was described at sentence as a “junior partner” role – where the applicant sourced methylamphetamine – where transactions were organised with persons in Brisbane, the Sunshine Coast, Cairns and South Australia – where the applicant was able to source drugs with a higher percentage of methylamphetamine, up to 75 per cent purity – where the applicant was selling from street level amounts known as “points” to ounces of methylamphetamine – where these were cash transactions interspersed with occasions when the applicant would take payment from customers by way of pseudoephedrine tablets – where the roles carried out by the applicant in the partnership business diversified over time – where on one occasion the applicant part-financed a proposed methylamphetamine production venture to the extent of $9,500 from his drug earnings – where the applicant sourced pre-cursors for further methylamphetamine production and investigated a source of cannabis in…

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 Parker

Details

AGLC: R v Parker [2015] QCA 181
Case: [2015] QCA 181
Decision Date: 2 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Parker, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The sentence was eight years imprisonment, which was to commence on 8 December 2015, with a non-parole period of six years, following a declaration of a serious violent offence pursuant to section 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The applicant’s trafficking activities were described as a “junior partner” role, involving sourcing and selling methylamphetamine, and the applicant had an extensive criminal history, including twice offending while on parole. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence did not take into account mitigating factors such as his role in the trafficking, his age, his drug use, and his criminal history. The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive by considering the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the case.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had considered the applicant's role in the trafficking, his age, his drug use, and his criminal history, including his twice offending on parole. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such an offence. The court also noted that the applicant's involvement in the trafficking was significant, generating sales of “many tens of thousands of dollars”. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not manifest any error of law or excessiveness.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Parker [2015] QCA 181
PARTIES:	R v PARKER, Dion Robert (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 15 of 2015 SC No 517 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 20 January 2015
DELIVERED ON:	2 October 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2015
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Flanagan J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 an offence against s 5(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) in that, he carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years – where a declaration of a conviction of a serious violent offence was made pursuant to s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (“PS Act”) – where the applicant was in custody at the time of sentence – where the offending was committed while the applicant was on parole – where the sentence hearing proceeded on the footing that the applicant’s trafficking activity had taken place over a period of about six months – where s 156A(2) of the PS Act required that because the applicant offended while on parole, his sentence the subject of this application should be served cumulatively with his current sentence – where the sentence of eight years is to commence on 8 December 2015 – where there was no declarable time already served – where the learned sentencing judge took into account the serious violent offence declaration and fixed a parole eligibility date of 1 May 2022 pursuant to s 160D of the PS Act – where by 1 May 2022 the applicant will have served 80 per cent of his eight year sentence – where the applicant’s involvement in the trafficking was described at sentence as a “junior partner” role – where the applicant sourced methylamphetamine – where transactions were organised with persons in Brisbane, the Sunshine Coast, Cairns and South Australia – where the applicant was able to source drugs with a higher percentage of methylamphetamine, up to 75 per cent purity – where the applicant was selling from street level amounts known as “points” to ounces of methylamphetamine – where these were cash transactions interspersed with occasions when the applicant would take payment from customers by way of pseudoephedrine tablets – where the roles carried out by the applicant in the partnership business diversified over time – where on one occasion the applicant part-financed a proposed methylamphetamine production venture to the extent of $9,500 from his drug earnings – where the applicant sourced pre-cursors for further methylamphetamine production and investigated a source of cannabis in…