R v Rohl - [2015] QCA 78

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rohl [2015] QCA 78

PARTIES:

R
v
ROHL, Neville Desmond
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 329 of 2014
SC No 589 of 2013
SC No 595 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 24 November 2014

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 April 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes and Morrison JJA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal is allowed.

2.   On counts 4 and 5 of indictment No 589/13: set aside the sentences of imprisonment of four years and nine months suspended after nine months and substitute sentences of three years and nine months suspended forthwith, with an operational period of four years.

3.   On counts 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of indictment No 589/13 and the sole count on indictment 595/14: vary the sentences by ordering that the applicant’s parole release date be fixed at 8 May 2015.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years and nine months imprisonment, suspended after nine months with a five year operational period, on two counts of supplying a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine); two years imprisonment in respect of each of three further counts of supplying a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams (methylamphetamine); six months imprisonment for possessing a thing (electronic scales) used in connection with the possession of a dangerous drug; two years imprisonment for one count of possessing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) in excess of 2 grams; and convicted but not further punished in relation to two summary offences – where the quantity of drugs supplied, their purity and the number of transactions suggested the supply was of a commercial nature – where the applicant committed two of the offences while he was on parole, and one while he was on bail and subject to a suspended sentence – where the applicant was an addict at the time of his offending – where the applicant had served 15 months in pre-sentence custody which could not be declared – where the applicant had a criminal history with five convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and an extensive traffic history – where the applicant co-operated with police by giving an interview and disclosing information both about his own offending and the involvement of others – where the applicant subsequently received threats and was required to be held in protective custody – whether the sentencing judge made proper allowance for the applicant’s co-operation with police – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
R v…

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 Rohl

Details

AGLC: R v Rohl [2015] QCA 78
Case: [2015] QCA 78
Decision Date: 8 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rohl, appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. Rohl was sentenced to a suspended sentence on two counts of supplying a dangerous drug and to prison terms on multiple drug-related charges. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered Rohl's cooperation with law enforcement and whether the sentence was disproportionately harsh. Rohl's case involved substantial drug supplies, suggesting a commercial operation, and he had a history of drug possession and traffic offenses. He had also been on parole and bail during some of his offenses and was an addict at the time of his crimes. Rohl had served 15 months in pre-sentence custody, and his cooperation with police had led to threats against him, necessitating protective custody.

The court assessed whether the sentencing judge had adequately accounted for Rohl's cooperation with the police and his status as a drug addict. It considered the nature of the offenses, Rohl's criminal history, and the circumstances of his offending, including his position on parole and bail. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently recognised Rohl's cooperation with law enforcement, which played a significant role in the investigation and could have warranted a lesser sentence. Additionally, the court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal is allowed.

2. On counts 4 and 5 of indictment No 589/13: set aside the sentences of imprisonment of four years and nine months suspended after nine months and substitute sentences of three years and nine months suspended forthwith, with an operational period of four years.

3. On counts 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of indictment No 589/13 and the sole count on indictment 595/14: vary the sentences by ordering that the applicant’s parole release date be fixed at 8 May 2015.

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 Rohl [2015] QCA 78
PARTIES:	R v ROHL, Neville Desmond (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 329 of 2014 SC No 589 of 2013 SC No 595 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 24 November 2014
DELIVERED ON:	8 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 April 2015
JUDGES:	Holmes and Morrison JJA and Boddice J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeal is allowed. 2. On counts 4 and 5 of indictment No 589/13: set aside the sentences of imprisonment of four years and nine months suspended after nine months and substitute sentences of three years and nine months suspended forthwith, with an operational period of four years. 3. On counts 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of indictment No 589/13 and the sole count on indictment 595/14: vary the sentences by ordering that the applicant’s parole release date be fixed at 8 May 2015.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years and nine months imprisonment, suspended after nine months with a five year operational period, on two counts of supplying a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine); two years imprisonment in respect of each of three further counts of supplying a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams (methylamphetamine); six months imprisonment for possessing a thing (electronic scales) used in connection with the possession of a dangerous drug; two years imprisonment for one count of possessing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) in excess of 2 grams; and convicted but not further punished in relation to two summary offences – where the quantity of drugs supplied, their purity and the number of transactions suggested the supply was of a commercial nature – where the applicant committed two of the offences while he was on parole, and one while he was on bail and subject to a suspended sentence – where the applicant was an addict at the time of his offending – where the applicant had served 15 months in pre-sentence custody which could not be declared – where the applicant had a criminal history with five convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and an extensive traffic history – where the applicant co-operated with police by giving an interview and disclosing information both about his own offending and the involvement of others – where the applicant subsequently received threats and was required to be held in protective custody – whether the sentencing judge made proper allowance for the applicant’s co-operation with police – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited R v…