R v Rowland - [2020] QCA 98

[2020] QCA 98

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO JA
BROWN J
RYAN J

CA No 358 of 2019
SC No 89 of 2019

THE QUEEN

ROWLAND, Nathan Jon Applicant

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 11 MAY 2020

JUDGMENT

BROWN J: The applicant was convicted and sentenced on 9 October 2019 of trafficking in a schedule 1 dangerous drug, namely, methylamphetamine. The applicant was sentenced to a period of five years with a parole eligibility date after 18 months.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentence imposed only on the basis that the sentence is manifestly excessive, having abandoned the other ground of appeal.

An appeal court will not intervene in relation to a sentence imposed on the basis that it is manifestly excessive except where the difference is such that, in all of the circumstances, the appellate court concludes that there must have been a misapplication of principle even though where and how is not apparent from the statement of reasons (Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 at 605–606).

The applicant was 31 years of age at the time of offending. He had a relatively minor criminal history and a significant traffic history. Prior to this sentence, he had not served time in custody. He had entered a timely plea of guilty. He had a very good employment history and had his own business. At the time of sentencing, he had re-partnered, and his partner was pregnant. He was not a drug addict but attributed his involvement in trafficking, at least initially, to seeking to protect his former partner, who is said to be a drug addict, from dealing with a supplier of methylamphetamine. That supplier was Paul Geddes.

A number of positive references were presented on his behalf. The applicant had voluntarily desisted from offending some months prior to being arrested.

The applicant contends that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and was likely the result of his Honour placing greater weight on the applicant’s level of offending than was open to his Honour on the material before the Court, namely, that the applicant was above a street-level dealer and involved wholesale dealing on the basis that he was selling ounce and half-ounce quantities. The applicant contends that the difficulty presented by the schedule of facts was the use of the term “dealing in methylamphetamine”, which seemed to refer to both sourcing and selling the drug.

Counsel for the applicant contends that while it was alleged that the applicant dealt with ounce quantities, the Crown could not prove the applicant had supplied ounce quantities. The applicant’s counsel submits that he also had informed the Sentencing Judge that his instructions were that the alleged conversations concerning the supply of ounces were not followed through. In addition, the applicant contends that the use of the words “sold” or “offered to sell” presented difficulties in assessing the true level at which the applicant was actually supplying methylamphetamine to other persons, and whether it was at street level or wholesale level. According…

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 Rowland

Details

AGLC: R v Rowland [2020] QCA 98
Case: [2020] QCA 98
Decision Date: 11 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rowland involved the applicant, Nathan Jon Rowland, appealing against his sentence for trafficking in a schedule 1 dangerous drug, namely, methylamphetamine. Rowland was sentenced to a period of five years with a parole eligibility date after 18 months. The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive as his Honour had placed greater weight on the level of offending than was open on the material before the court. The court considered the facts of the case and concluded that the applicant was a high-end street-level dealer and a wholesale dealer, given the transactions evidenced by the conversations and the amount of methylamphetamine being sourced by the applicant and offered for sale. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the learned sentencing judge had properly considered the nature of the offending and the mitigating factors, and that the sentence was not discordant with the authorities considered so as to indicate error. The final order was that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders