R v Robinson - [2011] QCA 27

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Robinson [2011] QCA 27

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBINSON, John Paul
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 142 of 2010
SC No 724 of 2009
SC No 1499 of 2009
SC No 1503 of 2009
SC No 211 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 February 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Chesterman JJA
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 is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to a large number of drug-related charges contained in three indictments – where applicant pleaded guilty to related summary charges – where applicant was sentenced on all counts in the three indictments to six years imprisonment – where applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment to be served concurrently for related summary charges – where applicant was sentenced on further summary charges not the subject of this application – where applicant argued the sentencing judge failed to take into account his addiction, cooperation with police and related assaults in prison – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63;[2003] QCA 175, cited
R v Stewart [2004] QCA 320, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

[1] MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, John Paul Robinson, pleaded guilty on 12 November 2009 to a large number of drug-related charges contained in three indictments. A four count ex officio indictment charged him with offences committed in 2007, namely, producing the dangerous drug amphetamine in a quantity in excess of 2.0 grams (count 1), producing the dangerous drug amphetamine (count 2), possessing instructions about the way to produce amphetamine (count 3) and possessing things used in connection with the crime of producing a dangerous drug (count 4). A six count indictment charged him with offences committed in December 2008, namely, two counts of producing the dangerous drug methylamphetamine (counts 1 and 3); supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine (count 2); possessing methylamphetamine (count 4); possessing cannabis (count 5); and possessing things used in connection with the crime of producing a dangerous drug (count 6). A four count indictment charged him with offences committed in 2009, namely, producing the dangerous drug methylamphetamine (count 1); two counts of supplying methylamphetamine (counts 2 and 3); and possessing things for use and used in connection with the crime of producing a dangerous drug (count 4). He also pleaded guilty to some summary offences committed in 2007.

[2] The sentencing proceedings were not concluded on 12 November and were adjourned until the…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2011] QCA 27
Case: [2011] QCA 27
Decision Date: 22/02/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentence by the applicant, Robinson, who had pleaded guilty to numerous drug-related charges contained in three indictments. Robinson was also convicted of related summary charges. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment on all counts in the three indictments and six months imprisonment for the related summary charges, to be served concurrently. The applicant contended that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider his addiction, cooperation with the police, and related assaults in prison. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court examined the circumstances of the case, including the nature and number of offences, the culpability of the applicant, and the sentencing principles applicable. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the mitigating factors presented by the applicant, including his addiction and cooperation with the police. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court determined that there were no grounds for interference with the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The applicant's sentence of six years imprisonment for the drug-related charges and six months imprisonment for the related summary charges was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

CITATION:	R v Robinson [2011] QCA 27
PARTIES:	R v ROBINSON, John Paul (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 142 of 2010 SC No 724 of 2009 SC No 1499 of 2009 SC No 1503 of 2009 SC No 211 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 February 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 February 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Chesterman JJA 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 is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to a large number of drug-related charges contained in three indictments – where applicant pleaded guilty to related summary charges – where applicant was sentenced on all counts in the three indictments to six years imprisonment – where applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment to be served concurrently for related summary charges – where applicant was sentenced on further summary charges not the subject of this application – where applicant argued the sentencing judge failed to take into account his addiction, cooperation with police and related assaults in prison – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63;[2003] QCA 175, cited R v Stewart [2004] QCA 320, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent