R v Plazanic

[1999] QCA 224

99.224

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P PINCUS JA THOMAS JA

CA No 115 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

LISA SANJA PLAZANIC	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 17/06/99 170699 D.1 T27/PMD19 M/T COA136/99 THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 7 April 1999 to 14 counts of supplying a dangerous drug; four relating to methylamphetamine, two relating to ecstasy and eight relating to cocaine.

She was sentenced to four years' imprisonment suspended after serving 12 months of that sentence with an operational period of four years.

The applicant claims the sentencing discretion
miscarried in that insufficient weight was given to the
applicant's youth, personal circumstances and efforts of

rehabilitation.

The offences were serious. They occurred between
27 November 1996 and 22 March 1997 and involved the
supply of the drugs to an undercover police officer. In
total, 6.143 grams of methylamphetamine, 4.606 grams of
ecstasy and 12.976 grams of cocaine were supplied with
$22,150 changing hands. It is common ground that the
applicant made very little profit for herself and was

really a "go-between".

The applicant had just turned 18 at the time of the
commission of the offences and was 20 at the time of
sentence. She had no prior convictions.
170699 D.1 T27/PMD19 M/T COA136/99
The report from psychiatrist, Dr John Brown, tendered on
her behalf below, noted that he first began treating her
on
28 October 1997 when she presented in an agitated and
distressed state following the murder/suicide of her
parents on 7 September 1997. He made reference to her
unhappy and unstable home life, a broken engagement at
17 which left her feeling embarrassed and humiliated and
her subsequent involvement with a bikie group who
"manipulated her with the use of drugs".

Two weeks after the death of her parents she was arrested and charged with these offences. Dr Brown's report reiterated the submission made by defence counsel at sentence that since then the applicant has rebuilt her life, was working full-time in her future husband's family florist business, had formed a stable relationship and was preparing for her wedding. She is expecting a child this month and we are told the child is due at any time now.

Dr Brown opined that the applicant was "unlikely to
reoffend and I do not believe she would benefit from any
term of imprisonment". His Honour accepted this and
noted the applicant's efforts at rehabilitation, her
plea of guilty, her age and lack of prior convictions.
Nevertheless, he determined that the need for general
deterrents in cases such as this required a custodial
sentence, imposing that of four years' imprisonment, but
suspending it after serving 12 months.
170699 D.1 T27/PMD19 M/T COA136/99

Neither the applicant nor the respondent has been able to assist this Court to any extent with comparable sentences from the Court of Appeal. The only comparable sentence to which we have been referred is that of a single Judge decision in R v. Nicole Marie Lewis, unreported, Byrne J, 6 November 1998. This was a matter referred to by His Honour below.

In that case, Lewis pleaded guilty to one count of possession of things used in connection with the commission of a relevant offence, five counts of supplying a first schedule drug, LSD and two counts of supplying both LSD and cocaine. The total amount of money handed over to undercover agents was in the first instance $18,050 and in the subsequent transaction $18,650.

There were 5,500 trips of LSD involved and 34.493 grams of powder containing 9.512 grams of cocaine. Lewis had no prior convictions and was 29 years old at the time of

the offences. Lewis, like this applicant, was sentenced
to four years' imprisonment which was suspended after
serving 12 months. Lewis, like this applicant, had good
prospects of rehabilitation. It must be said that Lewis
was a more serious matter than this matter and this
applicant, unlike Lewis, also had the benefit of her
extreme youth.
170699 T28/SJ3 M/T COA136/99
Whilst general deterrence is an important factor, courts
have always recognised the important mitigating factor
of youth in order to maximise the prospects of
rehabilitation of youthful offenders which, in this
case, are promising. The offences were so serious that
despite the significant mitigating factors a custodial
sentence was warranted, as His Honour noted, to deter
others from such conduct. Nevertheless, in my view,
more weight should have been given to the mitigating
circumstances in this case of the applicant's youth and
her good rehabilitative prospects by suspending the
sentence after six months rather than 12 months.

I would grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal and vary the sentence below by deleting the suspension after 12 months and instead ordering a suspension after serving six months of the sentence. Otherwise, I would confirm the sentence imposed below.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

THOMAS JA: I agree. The mechanism of a suspended
sentence was obviously an appropriate one. No objection
was raised to the head sentence. The real question on
this appeal is what is the period that the applicant
should serve before it is suspended. We were invited to
suspend the sentence today. The circumstance that the
applicant is about to give birth should not determine
170699 T28/SJ3 M/T COA136/99
the quantum of the appropriate order. In my view, 12
months in the circumstances mentioned by the President
was too long, but nothing less than six months would be
appropriate. I agree in the order proposed.

THE PRESIDENT: The orders are as I have proposed.

-----