R v Sabine - [2019] QCA 36

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sabine [2019] QCA 36

PARTIES:

R
v
SABINE, Dann’ll Todd Anthony
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 141 of 2018
SC No 1475 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 17 May 2018 (Brown J)

DELIVERED ON:

5 March 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2019

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Morrison and Philippides JJA

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – SENTENCE – POSSESSION – where the applicant was convicted after trial of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, in a quantity exceeding 2.0 grams – where the applicant left a clip-lock bag containing methylamphetamine in the public toilet at a service station – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for possession of methylamphetamine – where it was contended by counsel for the applicant that the methylamphetamine was not for a commercial purpose – where it was contended that the appropriate sentence for the offence should be 18 months – whether the sentence of two years imprisonment was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(a), s 160A, s 160B(4), s 160E(1)(a)

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, considered
R v Daly (2004) 147 A Crim R 440; [2004] QCA 385, considered
R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, cited
R v Hesketh; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 116, considered
R v Nicholson[2016] QCA 315, considered
R v Sartori[2006] QCA 284, considered
R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, cited
R v Warren[2014] QCA 175, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the applicant
C Cook for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES CJ: I agree with the reasons of Morrison JA and with the order that the application be refused. The sentence was not a lenient one, but it was not excessive. I agree also that consideration ought to be given to correcting the anomaly created by s 160B(4) of the Penalties and Sentences Act.
MORRISON JA: Following a trial the applicant was convicted of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, in a quantity exceeding 2.0 grams. He was sentenced on 17 May 2018. The sentence imposed was two years’ imprisonment, with parole release set at 17 May 2019.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the sole ground that it is manifestly excessive.
The applicant left a clip-lock bag containing methylamphetamine in the public toilet at a service station. The applicant had returned twice on the evening when he left…

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 Sabine

Details

AGLC: R v Sabine [2019] QCA 36
Case: [2019] QCA 36
Decision Date: 5 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sabine involved the applicant, who was convicted following a trial of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, in a quantity exceeding 2.0 grams. The applicant had left a clip-lock bag containing the drug in a public toilet at a service station. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and the matter was brought before the court on the grounds of appeal against the severity of the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of two years imprisonment was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant's counsel argued that the methylamphetamine was not intended for commercial purposes and that the appropriate sentence should be 18 months. The court needed to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the circumstances of the case.

In evaluating the appeal against the sentence, the court examined the principles governing the severity of drug-related offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It considered the quantity of the drug involved, the circumstances of the offence, and the applicant's criminal history. The court determined that the sentence of two years imprisonment, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offence and the need to uphold the deterrent effect of the law. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the original sentence of two years imprisonment would stand.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal 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 Sabine [2019] QCA 36
PARTIES:	R v SABINE, Dann’ll Todd Anthony (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 141 of 2018 SC No 1475 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 17 May 2018 (Brown J)
DELIVERED ON:	5 March 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 February 2019
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Morrison and Philippides JJA
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – SENTENCE – POSSESSION – where the applicant was convicted after trial of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, in a quantity exceeding 2.0 grams – where the applicant left a clip-lock bag containing methylamphetamine in the public toilet at a service station – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for possession of methylamphetamine – where it was contended by counsel for the applicant that the methylamphetamine was not for a commercial purpose – where it was contended that the appropriate sentence for the offence should be 18 months – whether the sentence of two years imprisonment was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(a), s 160A, s 160B(4), s 160E(1)(a) Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, considered R v Daly (2004) 147 A Crim R 440; [2004] QCA 385, considered R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, cited R v Hesketh; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 116, considered R v Nicholson[2016] QCA 315, considered R v Sartori[2006] QCA 284, considered R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, cited R v Warren[2014] QCA 175, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the applicant C Cook for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent