R v. Rodd; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [2008] QCA 341

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rodd; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 341

PARTIES:

R
v
RODD, Daniel James
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 193 of 2008
SC No 325 of 2007
SC No 586 of 2008
SC No 632 of 2008
SC No 633 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 October 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 October 2008

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, White AJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    That the appeal be allowed in respect of count one;

2.    That in respect of count one, the sentence of nine years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date fixed at 8 October 2010, be set aside;

3.    That on count one, the respondent be imprisoned for 10 years;

4.    That in respect of count one, there be a declaration that the respondent’s conviction is of a serious violent offence;

5.    That the other sentences imposed, and other orders made, on 27 June 2008, be confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATION TO INCREASE SENTENCE – trafficking in and production of methylamphetamine – large scale operations, with respondent a principal – large financial returns – substantial commercial motivation – respondent used violence to intimidate minions – offending continued after grants of bail – respondent’s own drug dependency of diminished significance because of commercial motivation – whether sentencing Judge erred in not making a serious violent offender declaration because of the respondent’s addiction – latish plea of guilty – whether sentence of 9 years imprisonment manifestly inadequate

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2)
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A(a)(ii),

s 161B(3)

R v D [1996] 1 Qd R 363; [1995] QCA 329, considered
R v Christensen[2002] QCA 113, considered
R v Kashton [2005] QCA 70, applied
R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359, applied

R v Tilley; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 424, considered

COUNSEL:

D L Meredith for the appellant
S J Hamlyn-Harris for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: The Honourable the Attorney-General appeals against sentences imposed on the respondent on 27 June 2008. The respondent had pleaded guilty to the offences on 24 April 2008.

The most serious was carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in methylamphetamine, between 1 January 2002 and 7 March 2004, for which the respondent was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with parole eligibility fixed after six years. Allowing for pre-sentence custody of 1,498 days, the date set was 8 October 2010.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v. Rodd; ex parte A-G (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] QCA 341
Decision Date: 31 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v. Rodd; ex parte A-G (Qld) involves an appeal by the Attorney-General of Queensland against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Rodd, who was convicted of trafficking in and producing methylamphetamine on a large scale. The appeal focuses on the adequacy of the sentence and the failure of the sentencing judge to make a declaration that Rodd’s conviction was of a serious violent offence. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the sentence of nine years imprisonment was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing judge erred in not declaring Rodd a serious violent offender.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence of nine years imprisonment was manifestly inadequate, and whether the sentencing judge was correct in not making a serious violent offender declaration due to Rodd’s drug addiction. The court considered the nature and scale of Rodd's drug operations, the significant financial returns from his activities, his use of violence to intimidate others, and the fact that he continued his offending even after being granted bail. The court also examined the timing of Rodd’s plea of guilty and the extent to which his drug dependency should be considered in light of his commercial motivations.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of nine years imprisonment was manifestly inadequate given the scale and seriousness of Rodd's criminal activities. The court held that the sentencing judge should have made a declaration that Rodd’s conviction was of a serious violent offence, despite his drug addiction, due to the violent nature of his conduct and the substantial commercial motivation behind his actions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the sentence was increased to 10 years imprisonment, with a declaration that the conviction was of a serious violent offence.

The final orders of the court were that the sentence of nine years imprisonment be set aside and replaced with a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with a declaration that Rodd’s conviction was of a serious violent offence. All other sentences and orders imposed on June 27, 2008, were confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the appeal be allowed in respect of count one;

2. That in respect of count one, the sentence of nine years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date fixed at 8 October 2010, be set aside;

3. That on count one, the respondent be imprisoned for 10 years;

4. That in respect of count one, there be a declaration that the respondent’s conviction is of a serious violent offence;

5. That the other sentences imposed, and other orders made, on 27 June 2008, be confirmed.

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 Rodd; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 341
PARTIES:	R v RODD, Daniel James (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 193 of 2008 SC No 325 of 2007 SC No 586 of 2008 SC No 632 of 2008 SC No 633 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	31 October 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 October 2008
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, White AJA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. That the appeal be allowed in respect of count one; 2. That in respect of count one, the sentence of nine years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date fixed at 8 October 2010, be set aside; 3. That on count one, the respondent be imprisoned for 10 years; 4. That in respect of count one, there be a declaration that the respondent’s conviction is of a serious violent offence; 5. That the other sentences imposed, and other orders made, on 27 June 2008, be confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATION TO INCREASE SENTENCE – trafficking in and production of methylamphetamine – large scale operations, with respondent a principal – large financial returns – substantial commercial motivation – respondent used violence to intimidate minions – offending continued after grants of bail – respondent’s own drug dependency of diminished significance because of commercial motivation – whether sentencing Judge erred in not making a serious violent offender declaration because of the respondent’s addiction – latish plea of guilty – whether sentence of 9 years imprisonment manifestly inadequate Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A(a)(ii), s 161B(3) R v D [1996] 1 Qd R 363; [1995] QCA 329, considered R v Christensen[2002] QCA 113, considered R v Kashton [2005] QCA 70, applied R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359, applied R v Tilley; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 424, considered
COUNSEL:	D L Meredith for the appellant S J Hamlyn-Harris for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent