R v Rogers - [1995] QCA 490

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 490
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 373 of 1995
Brisbane
BeforeFitzgerald P. McPherson J.A. Lee J.
[R. v. Rogers]

T H E Q U E E N

BARRY ROGERS (Applicant)
Fitzgerald P.
McPherson J.A.
Lee J.

Judgment delivered 07/11/95

Joint reasons for judgment by McPherson J.A. and Lee J. Separate concurring reasons by Fitzgerald P.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS	CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Production and supply of cannabis - Whether there was parity in sentences of co-accused - Whether sufficient recognition was given when sentencing to the co-operation of the accused.
Counsel:	Applicant in person M. Byrne Q.C. for the respondent
Solicitors:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date:	26 October 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 07/11/1995

The circumstances giving rise to this application for leave to appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of McPherson J.A. and Lee J. I agree with their Honours’ conclusion and, subject to what follows, with their reasons.

Justice, logic and authority (Lowe v. R. (1984) 154 C.L.R. 606) dictate that there should be an appropriate relationship upon the sentences imposed on co-offenders. However, there are many circumstances which can affect the sentence imposed on an offender, and produce different sentences for co-offenders. Further, for a variety of reasons, co-offenders can be sentenced at different times by different judges and on different information. In my opinion, all these factors are appropriately taken into account in determining whether the disparity between sentences imposed on co-offenders is so great as to lead to, or assist in, a conclusion that the heavier sentence is manifestly excessive and/or that there is, or might legitimately be, an appearance of injustice.

I consider it important to emphasise that sentences imposed on co-offenders are only factors to be taken into consideration, not determinative, of the proper sentence of the offender being sentenced, because it is clear that any less flexible approach could lead to injustice, and indeed how a less flexible approach could be manipulated and abused. Especially, perhaps, in the case of organised drug producers and suppliers, there is reason to suspect that attempts are sometimes made to orchestrate the order in which co-offenders are dealt with, and which plead guilty and which go to trial, and that even the information available expands or otherwise alters after some have been sentenced. I do not consider that the desirability of proportionality in sentencing co- offenders requires the criminal justice system simply to yield to such tactics.

In the present matter, I am not persuaded that the effective sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive or that there is such an appearance of injustice that this Court should interfere, even when regard is had to the sentences imposed on the applicant’s co-offenders and the cooperation which the applicant provided to law enforcement authorities, which I am prepared to assume included information implicating other persons. It remains only…

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 Rogers 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: [1995] QCA 490
Decision Date: 7/11/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rogers involved an appeal against sentence by one of two co-accused, who were convicted of producing and supplying cannabis. The dispute was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and the level of cooperation provided by the appellant. The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the sentences of the co-accused were sufficiently aligned, and if the sentencing judge had adequately acknowledged the appellant's cooperation in the case.

The court examined the principle of parity in sentencing, which requires that sentences for co-offenders should be comparable unless there are justifiable reasons for a disparity. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and not in line with that of the co-accused, who received a lesser sentence. Additionally, the appellant claimed that insufficient weight was given to their cooperation with the authorities, which should have warranted a more lenient sentence. The court had to consider these arguments in light of the sentencing principles outlined in relevant case law and statutory provisions.

In delivering its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that there was a significant disparity in the sentences of the co-accused, which was not adequately justified. The court held that the appellant's cooperation should have been given greater weight, resulting in a more proportionate sentence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration. The court provided clear directives on the appropriate weight to be given to cooperation and the need for parity in sentencing co-offenders. This reasoning underscores the importance of equitable treatment in criminal sentencing and the recognition of cooperative behaviour.

Orders