R v Roach

Case [2017] QCA 240

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Roach [2017] QCA 240

PARTIES:

R
v
ROACH, Nicolas Mark
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 355 of 2016
SC No 1048 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 16 December 2016 (Dalton J)

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2017

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Brown J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug – where the dangerous drugs were steroids – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a parole release date fixed after one year on the count of trafficking – where the applicant was sentenced to one years’ imprisonment on the count of unlawful possession – where the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that the time ordered to be spent in custody was manifestly excessive – whether there was a misapplication of principle by the learned sentencing judge

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that the learned sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account differences between steroids and other scheduled drugs – where the applicant submitted that steroids have different features from other Schedule 1 drugs by reference to quantity and potential financial benefits – where the applicant submitted that the different features of steroids should have been taken into account in the assessment of the scale of trafficking and any sentence imposed – where the applicant in addition submitted that the application for leave to appeal ought to be granted on the ground that the learned sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the applicant’s mitigating circumstances

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Drugs Misuse Regulations 1987 (Qld)

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
Adams v The Queen (2008) 234 CLR 143; [2008] HCA 15, considered
R v Blumke[2015] QCA 264, considered
R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183, cited
R v Connolly[2016] QCA 132, considered
R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442, cited
R v Engellenner[2012] QCA 6, considered
R v Hill, Bakir, Gray and Broad; ex parte Cth DPP (2011) 212 A Crim R 359; [2011] QCA 306, cited
R v Johnson[2007] QCA 433, cited
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
R v Ritzau[2017] QCA 17, considered
R v Scott[2006] QCA…

Continue reading R v Roach

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Roach [2017] QCA 240
Case
[2017] QCA 240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Roach, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug, with the drugs in question being steroids. The applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with a parole release date set for one year on the trafficking count and one year's imprisonment on the possession count, with both sentences to be served concurrently. The applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the time ordered to be spent in custody was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge misapplied principles by not taking into account differences between steroids and other scheduled drugs. The applicant further contended that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to mitigating circumstances.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's appeal against the sentence should be allowed on the basis that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there was a misapplication of principle by the sentencing judge. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentencing judge erred by not taking into account the differences between steroids and other scheduled drugs, particularly in relation to quantity and potential financial benefits, and whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's mitigating circumstances.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the sentencing judge did not misapply any principles. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately assessed the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the drugs involved and the applicant's mitigating factors. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be refused as the applicant had not demonstrated that the sentence was unjust or that there was an error in the application of the law by the sentencing judge.

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal 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.