R v Reddell - [2001] QCA 515

[2001] QCA 515

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
MACKENZIE J
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 286 of 2001

THE QUEEN

BARRY TREVOR REDDELL Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/11/2001

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty to one count of producing, between March and May 2000, a dangerous drug in an amount exceeding that prescribed by the third schedule. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. The drug produced was cannabis, which was growing on a property outside Cairns that was some distance from the applicant's home where he lived at the time.

There were, in fact, two crops, one containing 130 plants and another crop containing 70 plants. Crop 1, according to the analyst's certificate, weighed 123.549 grams and Crop 2 weighed 832.4 grams. Either crop, taken on its own, took the offence beyond the third schedule amount.

The offence of production to which the applicant pleaded guilty was capable of referring to either or both crops. The applicant admitted responsibility for Crop 1, but not for Crop 2. That issue, that is whether he was also responsible for Crop 2, therefore fell to be determined at the sentencing hearing at which evidence was called. If, in fact, the applicant had grown the two crops the offence was still the same. That is to say it remained one of production, but to some extent at any rate the offence became slightly more serious than if only one crop had been grown.

The sentencing Judge, who was the Chief Justice, found that the applicant was responsible for cultivating both crops; that is to say, it was he who had done it or had arranged for it to be done. In addition to the fact that both crops were being grown on or near the same property, or some of the same property, there were similarities in the method of cultivation. Among other matters, the investigating sergeant of police, who had considerable experience of crops of marijuana, said that both crops employed the use of overhead wires which, in his experience, was a unique method of cultivation.

The Chief Justice determined this issue on the balance of probabilities which by statute is now the applicable standard of proof in Queensland with respect to facts on sentencing. For my part I can see no basis on which his findings could or can be properly upset on appeal.

The applicant admitted that he had been growing Crop 1 to pay out a sum he owed his former wife as a result of a divorce settlement. But he also claimed on appeal that the debt was only $63,000 and not $85,000 as alleged. I do not see that this affects the conclusion that he was growing or producing for commercial purposes. Unless he was intending to supply his former wife with the cannabis in specie, and perhaps even then, he must have been intending that the crop would be sold somewhere else in order to obtain the money to pay the…

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 Reddell

Details

AGLC: R v Reddell [2001] QCA 515
Case: [2001] QCA 515
Decision Date: 16/11/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Reddell, the applicant, Barry Trevor Reddell, appealed against his conviction and sentence for producing a dangerous drug, specifically cannabis, in an amount exceeding the prescribed limit. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, with McPherson, MacKenzie, and Chesterman JJA presiding. The central issue was whether the applicant was responsible for the cultivation of both crops of cannabis, as determined by the sentencing judge. The second issue was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate for the offence committed.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant was responsible for cultivating both crops, based on the evidence presented, including the similarity in cultivation methods and the location of the crops on the same property. The Court upheld the sentencing judge's determination that the applicant was responsible for both crops, as there was no basis to overturn the findings. The Court also considered the applicant's arguments regarding the amount of the debt he owed his former wife and the difference in the weight of the two crops, but found these arguments to be without merit in determining his criminal responsibility.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for an offence of this kind and that the differences in sentencing between this case and a previous case did not warrant interference. The Court also addressed the question of whether it was permissible to determine the applicant's criminal responsibility for Crop 2 as a disputed fact. The Court found that in the circumstances of this case, it was appropriate to proceed as the Crown did and that there was no basis to depart from the sentencing judge's view of the facts.

The final order of the Court of Appeal was that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the sentencing judge were upheld.

Orders