R v Pearson - [2015] QCA 118

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pearson [2015] QCA 118

PARTIES:

R
v
PEARSON, Martin Jon
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 290 of 2014
DC No 1158 of 2014
DC No 1433 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 8 October 2014

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2015

JUDGE:

Holmes JA and Ann Lyons and Burns JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

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 – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Brisbane on 8 October 2014 – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of producing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams, namely cannabis, two counts of possessing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a thing for use in connection with producing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing things used in connection with producing a dangerous drug and one summary offence of possession of utensils – where the learned sentencing judge imposed a fine of $1,500 in relation to all offences and recorded convictions – whether the recording of convictions rendered the sentence manifestly excessive – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in the exercise of her discretion to record a conviction

Dixon & Jones v Irvine[1995] QCA 71, considered
R v Applewaite & Jones (1996) 90 A Crim R 167; [1996] QCA 533, cited
R v Ball [1999] QCA 427, cited
R v Blakers & Attorney-General of Queensland[1997] QCA 79, cited
R v Brown[1997] QCA 170, cited
R v Laing (2003) 138 A Crim R 312; [2003] QCA 92, cited
R v Lyle[2013] QCA 293, followed
R v Tarabay[1998] QCA 317, cited

COUNSEL:

J Benjamin for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Ann Lyons J, and agree, for the reasons she has given, that this application for leave to appeal should be refused.
The applicant pointed to sentences from the trial division of this Court[1] in which sentencing judges had not recorded convictions against defendants for the charge of production despite the existence of the circumstance of aggravation that the plants’ weight exceeded 500 grams; in one instance by a factor of 11.[2] They served to illustrate only that another judge might have exercised the discretion favourably to the applicant here. It did not follow that her Honour’s exercise of the discretion entailed any error or rendered the sentence imposed manifestly excessive.
[1]R v David John Thomson, unreported, Martin J, SC No 668…

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 Pearson

Details

AGLC: R v Pearson [2015] QCA 118
Case: [2015] QCA 118
Decision Date: 26 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court at Brisbane on 8 October 2014. The applicant pleaded guilty to several charges including producing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams, possessing a dangerous drug, possessing a thing for use in connection with producing a dangerous drug, possessing things used in connection with producing a dangerous drug, and a summary offence of possession of utensils. The sentencing judge imposed a fine of $1,500 in relation to all offences and recorded convictions. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the recording of convictions constituted an error in the exercise of judicial discretion.

The legal issues in this case centred on whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether the recording of convictions was justified. The applicant contended that the fine was excessively lenient and that the court should have imposed a custodial sentence. Additionally, the applicant argued that the recording of convictions was inappropriate as it would have a disproportionate impact on their future opportunities. The central issue was whether these arguments provided sufficient grounds for the court to grant leave to appeal.

In considering the application, the court examined the nature of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court found that the fine was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offences committed. The court also concluded that there was no error in the exercise of judicial discretion in recording the convictions, as the nature and seriousness of the offences warranted this action. Consequently, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and the recording of convictions was justified. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were straightforward: the application for leave to appeal was refused, meaning the original sentence and the recording of convictions would stand. This decision underscored the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the limited grounds upon which an appellate court may interfere with a sentencing decision.

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.

CITATION:	R v Pearson [2015] QCA 118
PARTIES:	R v PEARSON, Martin Jon (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 290 of 2014 DC No 1158 of 2014 DC No 1433 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 8 October 2014
DELIVERED ON:	26 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 June 2015
JUDGE:	Holmes JA and Ann Lyons and Burns JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
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 – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Brisbane on 8 October 2014 – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of producing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams, namely cannabis, two counts of possessing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a thing for use in connection with producing a dangerous drug, one count of possessing things used in connection with producing a dangerous drug and one summary offence of possession of utensils – where the learned sentencing judge imposed a fine of $1,500 in relation to all offences and recorded convictions – whether the recording of convictions rendered the sentence manifestly excessive – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in the exercise of her discretion to record a conviction Dixon & Jones v Irvine[1995] QCA 71, considered R v Applewaite & Jones (1996) 90 A Crim R 167; [1996] QCA 533, cited R v Ball [1999] QCA 427, cited R v Blakers & Attorney-General of Queensland[1997] QCA 79, cited R v Brown[1997] QCA 170, cited R v Laing (2003) 138 A Crim R 312; [2003] QCA 92, cited R v Lyle[2013] QCA 293, followed R v Tarabay[1998] QCA 317, cited
COUNSEL:	J Benjamin for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent