R v Sartori - [2006] QCA 284

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sartori [2006] QCA 284

PARTIES:

R
v
SARTORI, Jacob Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 161 of 2006
SC No 408 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 July 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard and Holmes JJA
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 dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property used in connection with the commission of crime of possessing a dangerous drug – sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after five months with an operational period of three years for the possession of ecstasy and to concurrent terms of three months imprisonment on the other two counts – significant co-operation with the police – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

COUNSEL:

B W Farr for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rostron Carlyle for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The application for leave to appeal should be refused for the reasons given by Jerrard JA.

JERRARD JA: On 25 May 2006 Mr Sartori pleaded guilty to the offences of possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine (“speed”), the dangerous drug 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA” or “ecstasy”) in a quantity exceeding 2 grams, and possession of a set of scales, a mobile phone, and a quantity of clip seal bags used in connection with the commission of the crime of possessing a dangerous drug. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after five months with an operational period of three years for the offence of possessing MDMA, and to concurrent terms of three months imprisonment on the two other counts. He has applied for leave to appeal, arguing that the sentences of imprisonment should have been suspended entirely.

The circumstances of the offences were that at about 5.00 pm on 20 August 2005 police executed a search warrant at a residence where Mr Sartori was present, and found a small clip seal bag in his wallet containing the speed, and a Tupperware container with two clip seal bags in Mr Sartori’s backpack. One bag had 49 ecstasy tablets and the other 50. Mr Sartori told the police that he had more ecstasy tablets in his car, and another five were found in a silver cigarette box in the centre console. The backpack, which had the Tupperware container, had also had a set of digital scales, an open box of clip seal bags, and a mobile phone. Mr Sartori told the police that he used the scales to weigh cannabis, which he bought, to make sure…

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 Sartori

Details

AGLC: R v Sartori [2006] QCA 284
Case: [2006] QCA 284
Decision Date: 4 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sartori, appealed against the sentence imposed upon his conviction for possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property used in connection with the commission of a crime. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The legal issues at the heart of this appeal centred on the fairness and proportionality of the sentence imposed by the lower court. Specifically, the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, given his significant co-operation with law enforcement during the investigation.

In considering the appeal, the Court of Appeal examined the circumstances of the case and the appellant's level of co-operation with the police. The court noted that the appellant had provided valuable assistance, which was acknowledged in the sentencing remarks. However, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of the overall circumstances and the need to consider the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court of Appeal upholding the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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 Sartori [2006] QCA 284
PARTIES:	R v SARTORI, Jacob Robert (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 161 of 2006 SC No 408 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 July 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard and Holmes JJA 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 dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to possessing dangerous drugs and possessing property used in connection with the commission of crime of possessing a dangerous drug – sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended after five months with an operational period of three years for the possession of ecstasy and to concurrent terms of three months imprisonment on the other two counts – significant co-operation with the police – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances
COUNSEL:	B W Farr for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Rostron Carlyle for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent