R v Reid

[2004] QCA 9

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Reid [2004] QCA 9

PARTIES:

R
v
REID, Peter
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 271 of 2003
SC No 209 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies and McPherson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence       granted
2.    Appeal against sentence allowed
3.    Set aside sentence imposed and in lieu impose a       sentence of four and a half years imprisonment

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CHARACTER OF OFFENCE - DRUG OFFENCES - where accused was convicted of supplying a dangerous drug - where accused was a police officer - where learned trial judge imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment - where applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Fingleton [2003] QCA 266; CA No 177 of 2003, 26 June 2003, followed

COUNSEL:

P J Callaghan for applicant/appellant
M J Copley for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

DAVIES JA:  The applicant was convicted after a trial in the Supreme Court on 28 July 2003 for supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine.  On the same date he was sentenced to six years imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for that offence at the time of the commission of the offence was 15 years.  The offence occurred on 17 February 2000.  He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the following substituted grounds:

1. the sentence is manifestly excessive;
2. her Honour, the learned sentencing judge, erred:

(a) When she imposed sentence on the basis that the applicable range was between four to six years imprisonment;

(b) By failing sufficiently to distinguish between the sentence to be imposed upon the applicant and the notional head sentence which would have been imposed on C; and

(c) In the approach which she took to, and the emphasis she placed on the fact that the applicant was a serving police officer at the time of the offence.

Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive depends, it seems to me, on whether the applicant can establish as an error, one or more of the matters referred to in paragraphs 2 (a), (b) or (c) of the grounds of appeal.

It is convenient therefore to deal with those grounds first.  Before doing so however, it is necessary to say something of the relevant facts.

Both the applicant and C, who was referred to in ground 2(b) of the notice of appeal, were police officers.  C was deceived by an undercover police operative, T, into believing that the latter was himself a major drug dealer.  T enlisted C to provide security at a meeting purportedly for the…