R v Parsons & Sanders - [1999] QCA 402

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 402
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 110 of 1999 C.A. No. 129 of 1999

Brisbane
[R v. Parsons & Sanders]
THE QUEEN
v.
JOHN EDWARD PARSONS and LORNA MARGARET SANDERS
(Applicants)

McMurdo P
Pincus JA
Thomas JA

Judgment delivered 24 September 1999
Joint reasons for judgment of Pincus JA and Thomas JA, separate reasons of
McMurdo P concurring as to the order made
EACH APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS -
APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - applicants sentenced to substantial prison terms for trafficking in cannabis - whether sentences manifestly excessive - whether sentencing judge gave too much weight to first applicant's criminal history - whether parity principle infringed by sentencing judge imposing greater sentence on first applicant than on co-trafficker - whether sentencing judge acted on basis that second applicant's business of dealing in cannabis more substantial than information before the court suggested

Counsel: Mr A J Kimmins for the applicant Parsons
Mr B G Devereaux for the applicant Sanders
Mr P F Rutledge for the respondent
Solicitors: Price and Roobottom for the applicant Parsons
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Sanders
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 8 July 1999

McMURDO P: I have read the joint reasons for judgment of Pincus and Thomas JJA and agree with them that both applications should be refused for the reasons they have given.
I would only add these additional comments in respect of Parsons' application. The learned primary judge noted in the course of sentencing the applicant:
"Certainly, your pleas of guilty have saved the cost to the Crown of a trial, but it is clear that this undercover operation would have been extraordinarily expensive as well as dangerous for some of the people involved, and I have to weigh up that as well."
Whilst it is legitimate to take into account the extent, scale and professionalism of the trafficking in determining an appropriate head sentence, I am not persuaded that the weight to be given to a plea of guilty should be diluted because of the expense and danger involved in gathering the evidence against the applicant. The applicant's plea of guilty warranted a recommendation for parole slightly earlier than the norm but the discount in this case was rightly a modest one taking into account the strength of the prosecution case and the absence of any co- operation with the authorities in identifying other drug dealers. The overall sentence, which includes the parole recommendation, of 8 years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 3½ years was, on the facts set out in Pincus and Thomas JJA's reasons, within the exercise of a proper sentencing discretion.
I agree with the orders proposed by Pincus and Thomas JJA.

5
PINCUS AND THOMAS JJA: These are two applications for leave…

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 Parsons & Sanders

Details

AGLC: R v Parsons & Sanders [1999] QCA 402
Case: [1999] QCA 402
Decision Date: 24/09/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, John Edward Parsons and Lorna Margaret Sanders, applied for leave to appeal against their sentences imposed by the Supreme Court for cannabis trafficking offences. Parsons was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 3 years and 6 months, while Sanders was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 18 months. The applicants argued that the sentences were excessively harsh and that the sentencing judge gave undue weight to Parsons' criminal history and failed to properly consider Sanders' role in the trafficking operation. The court was required to determine whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the applicants' circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentences were within the proper exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion. Regarding Parsons, the court noted that his extensive criminal history and involvement in large-scale cannabis trafficking justified a substantial sentence. The court also rejected the argument that Parsons was treated more harshly than a co-offender, finding that the differences in their roles and the scale of their operations warranted a discrepancy in sentencing. As for Sanders, the court found that she was actively involved in significant transactions and that her sentence reflected the seriousness of her involvement in the trafficking operation. The court concluded that neither applicant had demonstrated that their sentences were manifestly excessive or that the sentencing judge had erred in their imposition.

Both applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

Orders