R v Roberts - [2020] QCA 129

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Roberts [2020] QCA 129

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBERTS, Silvia
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 319 of 2019
SC No 1082 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 September 2019 (Douglas J)

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Bradley J

ORDER:

Leave to appeal be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after a trial in the face of a strong Crown case of one count of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine – where the applicant had over 400 grams of cocaine in her suitcase – where the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine years with a non-parole period of five years and six months – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant’s fingerprints were found on the plastic bag material inside the containers and also on the sticky side of the tape with which the bags were wrapped – where there was no evidence of duress or addiction – where there was no evidence of payment for the offending – where the learned trial judge found that the applicant was something more than a courier but did not go further than that – where the applicant submits that the learned sentencing judge erred in sentencing the applicant on the basis that she was more than a courier – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in finding the applicant to be something more than a courier – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant went to trial in the face of a strong Crown case – where the applicant made limited admissions on the first day of the trial but witnesses had already made travel arrangements – where the applicant submits that the learned judge increased the sentence because the applicant went to trial in the face of a strong Crown case – whether the learned sentencing judge increased the sentence on this basis – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried

R v Aziz, Unreported, Douglas J, SC No 937 of 2011, 8 March 2013, cited
R v Boimah[2017] QCA 50, cited
R v Hughes[2016] QCA 14, cited
R v Jimson[2009] QCA 183, distinguished
R v Junior, Unreported, Ryan J, SC No 1695 of 2017, 11 April 2018, distinguished
R v Lindsay [2012] NSWCCA 124, distinguished
R v Neto[2016] QCA 217, distinguished
R vOnyebuchi; Ex parte Commonwealth…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2020] QCA 129
Case: [2020] QCA 129
Decision Date: 12 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Roberts was heard by the court against the sentence imposed on the applicant following her conviction for importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, specifically cocaine, in the amount of over 400 grams. The applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge erred in sentencing her on the basis that she was more than a courier, and further that the judge increased the sentence because she went to trial in the face of a strong Crown case.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, whether the trial judge erred in finding the applicant to be more than a courier, and whether the sentencing discretion miscarried by increasing the sentence due to the applicant going to trial in the face of a strong Crown case. The applicant's argument centred on the principle that the sentence was excessive given the absence of evidence of duress, addiction, or payment for the offending. The applicant also argued that the judge erred by sentencing her on the basis that she was more than a courier, and that the judge's consideration of the applicant's decision to go to trial in the face of a strong Crown case influenced the sentence.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, noting the significant quantity of cocaine involved and the applicant's role in the importation. The court held that the trial judge did not act on the wrong principle in finding the applicant to be more than a courier, as the evidence supported the judge's conclusion. Furthermore, the court found that the sentence was not influenced by the applicant's decision to go to trial in the face of a strong Crown case, and that the sentencing discretion was not miscarried. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal be 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 Roberts [2020] QCA 129
PARTIES:	R v ROBERTS, Silvia (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 319 of 2019 SC No 1082 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 September 2019 (Douglas J)
DELIVERED ON:	12 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 May 2020
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Bradley J
ORDER:	Leave to appeal be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted after a trial in the face of a strong Crown case of one count of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine – where the applicant had over 400 grams of cocaine in her suitcase – where the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine years with a non-parole period of five years and six months – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant’s fingerprints were found on the plastic bag material inside the containers and also on the sticky side of the tape with which the bags were wrapped – where there was no evidence of duress or addiction – where there was no evidence of payment for the offending – where the learned trial judge found that the applicant was something more than a courier but did not go further than that – where the applicant submits that the learned sentencing judge erred in sentencing the applicant on the basis that she was more than a courier – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in finding the applicant to be something more than a courier – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant went to trial in the face of a strong Crown case – where the applicant made limited admissions on the first day of the trial but witnesses had already made travel arrangements – where the applicant submits that the learned judge increased the sentence because the applicant went to trial in the face of a strong Crown case – whether the learned sentencing judge increased the sentence on this basis – whether the sentencing discretion miscarried R v Aziz, Unreported, Douglas J, SC No 937 of 2011, 8 March 2013, cited R v Boimah[2017] QCA 50, cited R v Hughes[2016] QCA 14, cited R v Jimson[2009] QCA 183, distinguished R v Junior, Unreported, Ryan J, SC No 1695 of 2017, 11 April 2018, distinguished R v Lindsay [2012] NSWCCA 124, distinguished R v Neto[2016] QCA 217, distinguished R vOnyebuchi; Ex parte Commonwealth…