Legal Research
Cases
R v Saggers

R v Saggers

Case [2016] QCA 344 20 December 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Saggers [2016] QCA 344

PARTIES:

R
v
SAGGERS, Danise
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No 164 of 2016
SC No 432 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 May 2016

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2016

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Philippides JJA and Henry J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine and possession of methylamphetamine – where the applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of five years for the trafficking charge – where the applicant was convicted and not further punished on the possession charge – where the applicant appeals her sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive – where the applicant regularly dealt with 25 customers who she understood would on-supply the drug – where the applicant continued to offend after initially intercepted by police – where after being released on bail the applicant gained employment for about 12 months and claimed it had been significant in her rehabilitation – where there was a prolonged delay in the applicant deciding to plead guilty thus enabling her rehabilitation – where applicant claims the sentencing Judge failed to ameliorate the sentence to any extent for her rehabilitation – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A(3C), s 189

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
R v Ainsworth[2000] QCA 163, cited
R v Alt (2013) 236 A Crim R 486; [2013] QCA 343, cited
R v Baradel[2016] QCA 114, distinguished
R v Barton[2006] QCA 367, distinguished
R v Cannon[2005] QCA 41, cited
R v Fabre[2008] QCA 386, cited
R v McAway[2008] QCA 401, distinguished
R v Mullins[2007] QCA 418, distinguished
R v Reid[2013] QCA 190, distinguished
R v Skedgwell [1999] 2 Qd R 97; [1998] QCA 93, cited
R v Taylor[2005] QCA 379, distinguished
R v Tilley; ex parte Attorney General[1999] QCA 424, cited
R v Tytherleigh[2006] QCA 193, distinguished
R v Willoughby[2009] QCA 105, cited
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, applied

COUNSEL:

S A Lynch for the applicant
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Moloney MacCallum Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Henry J and with the reasons given by his…

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 Saggers

Details

AGLC: R v Saggers [2016] QCA 344
Case: [2016] QCA 344
Decision Date: 20 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Saggers, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine and possession of methylamphetamine, appealed against her sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The sentencing court had imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment, suspended after 12 months for an operational period of five years for the trafficking charge, and no further punishment was imposed on the possession charge. The applicant contended that the sentence did not sufficiently account for her rehabilitation, which she claimed had been significantly influenced by her employment secured after being released on bail.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant's role in the drug trade, her continued offending, and her eventual rehabilitation. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to reduce the sentence to reflect her rehabilitation and the delay in her decision to plead guilty. The court was required to determine if the sentence imposed was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the applicant's role in the drug trade, her continued offending despite being intercepted by police, and the delay in her decision to plead guilty. The court also found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence did not fail to ameliorate the applicant's rehabilitation and thus dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Saggers [2016] QCA 344

Most Recent Citation

R v Bull [2017] QCA 293

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

R v Volkov
[2022] QCA 57 Para 16

…offending as in this case. [51]Unreported, Indictment No 941 of 2018, 25 July 2018. [52]Unreported Indictment No 1631 of 2017, 27 July 2018. [53][2016] QCA 344.…
R v McLean
[2021] QCA 70 Para 23

…o take into account a young offender’s subjective circumstances, which was reflected in the period at which the imprisonment was suspended. [14][2016] QCA 344.…
R v Piccles
[2020] QCA 84

…mplaint is made about the sentence of four years’ imprisonment imposed by his Honour. That sentence is supported by authorities such as R v Saggers [2016] QCA 344, R v Jobsz [2013] QCA 5, R v Bagnall [2005] QCA 20 and R v Spark [2018] QCA 231, all of which were cited to his Honour. The narrow point on the applica…
R v DS
[2019] QSC 288 Para 9

…nt. [26] Including R v Scott [2006] QCA 76; R v Borowicz [2016] QCA 211; R v Blumke [2015] QCA 264; R v C’Ward [2014] QCA 15; R v Saggers [2016] QCA 344; and R v Bull [2017] QCA 293.…
R v Walker
[2019] QCA 199 Para 5

…of the parity principle: see R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176.) In addition, the applicant relies upon R v Church [2015] QCA 24 and R v Saggers [2016] QCA 344. The respondent submits that those sentences are explained by the different circumstances in those cases and that R v Baradel [2016] QCA 114 demonstrates…
R v Bull
[2017] QCA 293

…[7][2016] QCA 344.…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

R v Baradel
[2016] QCA 114 Para 5

…ginally younger but marginally more serious offender than the applicant receiving a broadly comparable sentence outcome to the applicant. [15][2016] QCA 114.…
R v Alt
[2013] QCA 343

…Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited R v Ainsworth [2000] QCA 163 , ci ted R v Alt (2013) 236 A Crim R 486; [2013] QCA 343 , cited R v Baradel [2016] QCA 114 , distinguished R v Barton [2006] QCA 367 , distinguished R v Cannon [2005] QCA 41 , cited R v Fabre [2008] QCA 386 , cited R v McAway [2008] QCA…
R v Reid
[2013] QCA 190 Para 6

…ting the head sentence of five years, I expressly take into account the fact that you have spent some eight months already in custody.”[4] [2][2013] QCA 190. [3][2006] QCA 367. [4]AB 31 L41.…
R v Willoughby
[2009] QCA 105 Para 3

…ere the offender not responsible for the delay.[10] [9]See, for example, R v Tilley; ex parte Attorney General [1999] QCA 424, R v Willoughby [2009] QCA 105, [48]. [10] R v Alt (2013) 236 A Crim R 486, 497.…
R v McAway
[2008] QCA 401 Para 4

…f this, MDMA and MDEA were schedule 2 drugs at the time of McAway ’s sentence, so she was facing lesser maximum penalties than the applicant. [13][2008] QCA 401. [14]See AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111, 155.…
R v Fabre
[2008] QCA 386

…l [2016] QCA 114 , distinguished R v Barton [2006] QCA 367 , distinguished R v Cannon [2005] QCA 41 , cited R v Fabre [2008] QCA 386 , cited R v McAway [2008] QCA 401 , distinguished R v Mullins [2007] QCA 418 , distinguished R v Reid [2013] QCA 190 , distinguished R v Skedgwell [1999] 2 Qd R 97; [1998] QCA 93, c…
R v Mullins
[2007] QCA 418 Para 8

…bility after 15 months, reflect a materially lower level of overall culpability than is present here. [17][2005] QCA 379. [18][2006] QCA 193. [19][2007] QCA 418.…
R v Barton
[2006] QCA 367 Para 6

…nce of five years, I expressly take into account the fact that you have spent some eight months already in custody.”[4] [2][2013] QCA 190. [3][2006] QCA 367. [4]AB 31 L41.…
R v Tytherleigh
[2006] QCA 193 Para 8

…nt with parole eligibility after 15 months, reflect a materially lower level of overall culpability than is present here. [17][2005] QCA 379. [18][2006] QCA 193. [19][2007] QCA 418.…
R v Taylor
[2005] QCA 379 Para 8

…ur years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility after 15 months, reflect a materially lower level of overall culpability than is present here. [17][2005] QCA 379. [18][2006] QCA 193. [19][2007] QCA 418.…
R v Cannon
[2005] QCA 41

…2013] QCA 343 , cited R v Baradel [2016] QCA 114 , distinguished R v Barton [2006] QCA 367 , distinguished R v Cannon [2005] QCA 41 , cited R v Fabre [2008] QCA 386 , cited R v McAway [2008] QCA 401 , distinguished R v Mullins [2007] QCA 418 , distinguished R v Reid [2013] QCA 190 , distinguished R v Skedgwell […
Wong v The Queen
[2001] HCA 64

…Tytherleigh [2006] QCA 193 , distinguished R v Willoughby [2009] QCA 105 , cited Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, applied COUNSEL: S A Lynch for the applicant D R Kinsella for the respondent SOLICITORS: Moloney MacCallum Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) fo…
R v Ainsworth
[2000] QCA 163

…and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A(3C), s 189 AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited R v Ainsworth [2000] QCA 163 , ci ted R v Alt (2013) 236 A Crim R 486; [2013] QCA 343 , cited R v Baradel [2016] QCA 114 , distinguished R v Barton [2006] QCA 367 , distinguished R v Cannon [2005] QCA 41 , cite…
R v Tilley; ex parte A-G
[1999] QCA 424 Para 3

…e in mitigation than it would were the offender not responsible for the delay.[10] [9]See, for example, R v Tilley; ex parte Attorney General [1999] QCA 424, R v Willoughby [2009] QCA 105, [48]. [10] R v Alt (2013) 236 A Crim R 486, 497.…
AB v The Queen
[1999] HCA 46

…e Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A(3C), s 189 AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited R v Ainsworth [2000] QCA 163 , ci ted R v Alt (2013) 236 A Crim R 486; [2013] QCA 343 , cited R v Baradel [2016] QCA 114 , distinguished R v Barton [2006] QCA 367 , distingui…
R v Skedgwell
[1998] QCA 93

…ed R v Mullins [2007] QCA 418 , distinguished R v Reid [2013] QCA 190 , distinguished R v Skedgwell [1999] 2 Qd R 97; [1998] QCA 93, cited R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379 , distinguished R v Tilley; ex parte Attorney General [1999] QCA 424 , cited R v Tytherleigh [2006] QCA 193 , distinguished R v Willoughby [2009] QC…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
5(2) 2 mentions (from Para 2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
159A(3C) 2 mentions (from Para 10)

CITATION:	R v Saggers [2016] QCA 344
PARTIES:	R v SAGGERS, Danise (applicant)
FILE NO:	CA No 164 of 2016 SC No 432 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 May 2016
DELIVERED ON:	20 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 November 2016
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Philippides JJA and Henry J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine and possession of methylamphetamine – where the applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment suspended after 12 months for an operational period of five years for the trafficking charge – where the applicant was convicted and not further punished on the possession charge – where the applicant appeals her sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive – where the applicant regularly dealt with 25 customers who she understood would on-supply the drug – where the applicant continued to offend after initially intercepted by police – where after being released on bail the applicant gained employment for about 12 months and claimed it had been significant in her rehabilitation – where there was a prolonged delay in the applicant deciding to plead guilty thus enabling her rehabilitation – where applicant claims the sentencing Judge failed to ameliorate the sentence to any extent for her rehabilitation – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A(3C), s 189 AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited R v Ainsworth[2000] QCA 163, cited R v Alt (2013) 236 A Crim R 486; [2013] QCA 343, cited R v Baradel[2016] QCA 114, distinguished R v Barton[2006] QCA 367, distinguished R v Cannon[2005] QCA 41, cited R v Fabre[2008] QCA 386, cited R v McAway[2008] QCA 401, distinguished R v Mullins[2007] QCA 418, distinguished R v Reid[2013] QCA 190, distinguished R v Skedgwell [1999] 2 Qd R 97; [1998] QCA 93, cited R v Taylor[2005] QCA 379, distinguished R v Tilley; ex parte Attorney General[1999] QCA 424, cited R v Tytherleigh[2006] QCA 193, distinguished R v Willoughby[2009] QCA 105, cited Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, applied
COUNSEL:	S A Lynch for the applicant D R Kinsella for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Moloney MacCallum Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent