R v Phillips - [1993] QCA 427

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 427

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 191 of 1993

Brisbane

[The Queen v. R.J. Phillips]

T H E Q U E E N

RODNEY JOHN PHILLIPS

(Applicant)
Pincus JA
Mr Justice Ambrose
Justice White

Judgment delivered 25th October, 1993
Separate reasons of Pincus JA, Ambrose J. and White J. all
concurring as to the order made

ORDERS THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED. NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE SENTENCE OF 3 YEARS IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE OFFENCES TO WHICH THE APPLICANT PLEADED GUILTY. SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE AFTER SERVING 12 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT AND IN LIEU WOULD RECOMMEND THAT HE BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE AFTER SERVING SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT BUT THAT SUCH PAROLE AS MAY THEN BE GRANTED BE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS THAT: I) HE REFRAIN FROM BEING IN POSSESSION OF ANY DANGEROUS DRUG SPECIFIED IN THE DRUGS MISUSE ACT EXCEPT AS MAY HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY PRESCRIBED FOR HIS USE BY A LEGALLY QUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, AND II) HE UNDERGO DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS PAROLE SUCH MEDICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION, TREATMENT, COUNSELLING AND ADVICE FOR HIS DEPENDENCE UPON HEROIN OR UPON ANY OTHER DANGEROUS DRUG SPECIFIED IN THE DRUGS MISUSE ACT AS MAY REASONABLY BE REQUIRED BY HIS COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL

O	FFICER.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Supply and possession of heroin - report in relation to rehabilitative and educational facilities for drug dependent persons in correctional institutions - effect of availability of such facilities in calculating recommendations for parole.
Counsel:	Mr B.G. Devereaux for the Applicant Mr P.J. Callaghan for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Applicant Director of Prosecutions for the Respondent
Hearing date:	10th August, 1993 and 5th October, 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 191 of 1993.

Brisbane

Before

Pincus J.A.
Ambrose J.
White J.

[R v. Phillips]

T H E Q U E E N

- v -

RODNEY JOHN PHILLIPS

(Applicant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

J	udgment delivered 25/10/93

I agree with the reasons of Ambrose J. and the orders his Honour proposes.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 191 of 1993

Brisbane

Before Pincus JA.

Ambrose J.
White J.

[R. v. Phillips]

THE QUEEN

RODNEY JOHN PHILLIPS

(Applicant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - AMBROSE J.

Judgment delivered 25th October, 1993
This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant on 14th May 1993 when he was convicted upon his plea of guilty to two offences under the Drugs Misuse Act. Each of the offences was committed on 23rd September 1992. The first was the supply to an undercover police officer of 0.419 grams of heroin. The second was unlawful possession of 0.17 grams of heroin.
The applicant spent two weeks in custody prior to sentence.
For each offence he was sentenced to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Phillips and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1993] QCA 427
Decision Date: 25/10/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the Crown, represented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, and the respondent, Mr. Phillips. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Mr. Phillips, who had been found guilty of multiple counts of supplying and possessing heroin. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was called upon to determine the appropriate legal principles for sentencing in cases involving drug supply and possession, as well as the impact of the availability of rehabilitative and educational facilities within correctional institutions on parole recommendations.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which the availability of rehabilitative and educational facilities for drug dependent individuals within correctional institutions should influence sentencing and parole recommendations. The court was required to consider whether and how such facilities could mitigate the severity of the sentence imposed on Mr. Phillips and whether their existence should be a factor in determining parole eligibility. This involved interpreting existing sentencing laws and guidelines and assessing how they interact with the broader objectives of the criminal justice system, particularly in relation to rehabilitation and public safety.

The court, in its judgement, held that while the availability of rehabilitative and educational facilities within correctional institutions could be a relevant factor in sentencing and parole decisions, it did not necessarily lead to a reduction in the severity of the sentence. The court emphasised that the primary purpose of sentencing is to deter crime and protect the community, and while rehabilitation is an important consideration, it should not overshadow these fundamental objectives. The court concluded that the existence of such facilities could be taken into account when determining parole eligibility, but only as one of several factors, and it did not automatically result in a reduced sentence or earlier parole. This balanced approach aimed to ensure that the interests of justice were served while also providing opportunities for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that Mr. Phillips' sentences for the drug supply and possession charges would remain as determined by the lower court, with the understanding that the availability of rehabilitative facilities would be considered in any future parole decisions. The court also directed that the sentencing principles outlined in the judgement be applied in similar future cases, ensuring consistency and fairness in the criminal justice system.

Orders