R v Roberts - [2018] QCA 239

[2018] QCA 239

COURT OF APPEAL

FRASER JA
PHILIPPIDES JA
McMURDO JA

CA No 138 of 2018
SC No 174 of 2018

THE QUEEN

ROBERTS, Daniel Wayne John Applicant

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2018

JUDGMENT

PHILIPPIDES JA: The applicant was sentenced on 28 May 2018 to six years imprisonment for trafficking in cocaine and MDMA, one year imprisonment on each of three counts of supplying cocaine and six months on one count of possession of cocaine. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. A period of 17 days custody was declared as time already served and a parole eligibility date was fixed at 10 May 2020, after two years was served. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the grounds that the sentence imposed on the trafficking count was manifestly excessive.

The applicant was 27 to 28 years of age at the time of the offending. The circumstances of the offending came to light as a result of telephone intercepts during a police investigation over a period of 18 months. The intercepts revealed that the applicant had carried on the wholesale trafficking of cocaine and MDMA over a period of nine weeks. He sold at least four ounces of cocaine in quantities ranging from 14 grams to 28 grams, and at least 2,500 MDMA pills, and had a customer base of up to 16 people. He sometimes supplied the drugs on a credit basis.

Between 15 January 2015, the last day of the trafficking period, and 10 July 2015, the police did not intercept any of the applicant’s calls but, from 11 July 2015 to 30 September 2015, intercepted calls revealed that the applicant sold an ounce of cocaine on three occasions in July. When the police searched his residence on 22 December 2015, they found him in possession of 0.066 grams of cocaine and some vials which contained steroids.

In imposing sentence, the sentencing judge had regard to the serious nature of the offending which involved the wholesale trafficking of cocaine and MDMA over a nine-week period to up to 16 people. While there was no evidence of significant unsourced wealth, that did not detract from the fact that wholesale trafficking was involved, the drugs were sold on credit in large amounts, and the offending was engaged in for profit as a commercial operation by a person who, although a user, was not an addict trafficking to feed an addiction.

The sentencing judge also took into account the applicant’s early pleas of guilty as evidencing cooperation with the administration of justice. His Honour also observed that the applicant failed to appear at sentence, resulting in a warrant being issued for his arrest, although he ultimately surrendered himself to the Court, and that did not sit comfortably with a cooperative stance. Nevertheless, his Honour considered that the applicant should be sentenced on the basis of having cooperated in the administration of justice and that the sentence imposed should reflect the early pleas by providing for…

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 [2018] QCA 239
Case: [2018] QCA 239
Decision Date: 27 SEPTEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Queen versus Daniel Wayne John Roberts, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the applicant's appeal against the sentence imposed on him for various drug-related offences. The applicant was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment for trafficking in cocaine and MDMA, with additional sentences for supplying cocaine and possession of cocaine. The applicant argued that the sentence imposed for trafficking was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed on the trafficking count was manifestly excessive and whether the Court should grant leave to appeal against the sentence. The Court of Appeal considered the nature and extent of the applicant's offending, his personal circumstances, and the sentencing principles relevant to drug trafficking offences. The Court also considered relevant authorities and submissions made by both parties.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed on the trafficking count was within the sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. The Court noted that the applicant had engaged in wholesale trafficking of cocaine and MDMA over a nine-week period, selling drugs to up to 16 people. The Court also found that the applicant was not an addict trafficking to feed his addiction but was instead engaged in a commercial operation for profit. The Court held that while a more lenient sentence may have been possible, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the Court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence.

Orders