R v Reid - [2013] QCA 190

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Reid [2013] QCA 190

PARTIES:

R
v
REID, Laura Elizabeth
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 284 of 2012
SC No 237 of 2012
SC No 484 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2013

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to six drug related indictable offences including the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug – where the trafficking offence attracted a period of imprisonment of five years and nine months with concurrent terms of imprisonment imposed for the remaining indictable offences – where applicant also pleaded guilty to seven summary offences for which convictions were recorded for all and one year imprisonment for the offence of driving without a licence whilst disqualified was imposed to be served cumulatively upon the sentence for the indictable offences – where a further five drug related s 189 offences with the summary offences were taken into account in the head sentence imposed – where the applicant headed a group of three drug traffickers to which she on-supplied drugs – where it was accepted that the applicant engaged in trafficking in order to finance, and to re-pay a significant debt incurred in, her own addiction – where the applicant was actively involved in sourcing the drugs in which she dealt – where the trafficking period charged extended over a period of 52 days – where the applicant contends that there was an inflation of the head sentence taking into account the summary offences which was manifestly excessive – where there were marked differences in both culpability and circumstances between the applicant and her co-offender – whether the sentence imposed was in fact manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408D, s 488, s 514
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5, s 9, s 10
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 189
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 790
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 78

R v Atkins[2007] QCA 309, cited
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited
R v Taylor[2005] QCA 379, cited
R v Tout[2012] QCA 296, considered
R v Tytherleigh[2006] QCA 193, cited

COUNSEL:

M Green for the applicant
G Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MUIR JA: I agree that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Gotterson JA.

GOTTERSON JA: On…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2013] QCA 190
Case: [2013] QCA 190
Decision Date: 19 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reid involved the applicant, who pleaded guilty to six drug-related indictable offences, including the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug, as well as seven summary offences. The applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of five years and nine months for the trafficking offence, with concurrent terms of imprisonment for the remaining indictable offences. Additionally, she was sentenced to one year imprisonment for the offence of driving without a licence while disqualified, to be served cumulatively upon the sentence for the indictable offences. The court took into account the summary offences in the head sentence imposed, as well as the fact that the applicant was actively involved in sourcing the drugs she dealt.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant contended that there was an inflation of the head sentence taking into account the summary offences, which was manifestly excessive. The court needed to consider the marked differences in both culpability and circumstances between the applicant and her co-offender, as well as the applicant's involvement in sourcing the drugs she dealt.

In determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the principle of proportionality. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the applicant's role in the trafficking group, her involvement in sourcing the drugs, and the period over which the trafficking occurred. The court also found that the differences in culpability and circumstances between the applicant and her co-offender did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Reid [2013] QCA 190
PARTIES:	R v REID, Laura Elizabeth (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 284 of 2012 SC No 237 of 2012 SC No 484 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 July 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 May 2013
JUDGES:	Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to six drug related indictable offences including the offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug – where the trafficking offence attracted a period of imprisonment of five years and nine months with concurrent terms of imprisonment imposed for the remaining indictable offences – where applicant also pleaded guilty to seven summary offences for which convictions were recorded for all and one year imprisonment for the offence of driving without a licence whilst disqualified was imposed to be served cumulatively upon the sentence for the indictable offences – where a further five drug related s 189 offences with the summary offences were taken into account in the head sentence imposed – where the applicant headed a group of three drug traffickers to which she on-supplied drugs – where it was accepted that the applicant engaged in trafficking in order to finance, and to re-pay a significant debt incurred in, her own addiction – where the applicant was actively involved in sourcing the drugs in which she dealt – where the trafficking period charged extended over a period of 52 days – where the applicant contends that there was an inflation of the head sentence taking into account the summary offences which was manifestly excessive – where there were marked differences in both culpability and circumstances between the applicant and her co-offender – whether the sentence imposed was in fact manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408D, s 488, s 514 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5, s 9, s 10 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 189 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 790 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 78 R v Atkins[2007] QCA 309, cited Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited R v Taylor[2005] QCA 379, cited R v Tout[2012] QCA 296, considered R v Tytherleigh[2006] QCA 193, cited
COUNSEL:	M Green for the applicant G Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent