R v Raciti

Case [2004] QCA 359

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brown [2009] QCA 359

PARTIES:

R
v
BROWN, Laurence Charles
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 320 of 2008
SC No 374 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 November 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 September 2009

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Cullinane J and P Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

2.    Leave for the applicant to rely upon the affidavits of Laurence Charles Brown sworn 4 September 2009 and Patricia Anne Brown sworn 9 September 2009 is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and seven counts of supplying a dangerous drug – where applicant sentenced to eight years imprisonment – where applicant eligible for parole fixed at 30 June 2010 – where applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that the sentence is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances – where applicant seeks leave to appeal based upon a number of additional matters – where time served for other offences with common elements – whether sentence is manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 651
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, considered
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, distinguished
R v Bellino (1999) 105 A Crim R 137; [1999] QCA 106, distinguished
R v Elizalde [2006] QCA 330, distinguished
R v Flew [2008] QCA 290, considered
R v Manning [2007] QCA 145, distinguished
R v Taylor [2006] QCA 459, distinguished
R v Webber (2000) 114 A Crim R 381; [2000] QCA 316, considered

COUNSEL:

S Di Carlo (pro bono) for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of P Lyons J and the orders proposed by his Honour.

  1. CULLINANE J:  I have read the reasons of P Lyons J in this matter.  I agree with those reasons and the orders proposed.

  1. P LYONS J: On 31 October 2008, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of carrying on a business of trafficking in dangerous drugs, and seven charges of supplying those drugs. In respect of the trafficking count, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight years. His parole eligibility date was fixed at 30 June 2010. A declaration was made under s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act relating to 357 days spent in pre-sentence custody.  The result was that the parole eligibility date was slightly less…

Continue reading R v Raciti

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Raciti [2009] QCA 359
Case
[2004] QCA 359
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, in this case, was convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and seven counts of supplying a dangerous drug. The applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole fixed at 30 June 2010. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The applicant also sought leave to rely upon affidavits sworn by Laurence Charles Brown and Patricia Anne Brown. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to several factors, including the time already served for other offences with common elements.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the characteristics of the offender, and the principle of proportionality in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also needed to assess whether the applicant's arguments concerning time already served and the affidavits provided sufficient grounds for the appeal to be heard.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the significant quantity of drugs involved and the applicant's role in the supply chain. The court also considered the applicant's criminal history and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for the offences committed. The court further found that the additional matters raised by the applicant, including the time already served and the affidavits, did not provide sufficient grounds for the appeal to be heard.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court also refused leave for the applicant to rely upon the affidavits of Laurence Charles Brown and Patricia Anne Brown. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant's arguments did not provide sufficient grounds for the appeal to be heard.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

2. Leave for the applicant to rely upon the affidavits of Laurence Charles Brown sworn 4 September 2009 and Patricia Anne Brown sworn 9 September 2009 is 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.