R v Saunders - [2007] QCA 93

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Saunders [2007] QCA 93

PARTIES:

R
v
SAUNDERS, Leslie Ronald
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 4 of 2007
SC No 1026 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. That the application and the appeal in respect of count one be allowed
2. That the serious violence offence declaration and sentence in respect of count one be set aside and a term of imprisonment of eight years be reimposed, to be served concurrently with all other sentences being served by the applicant, and with a parole release date of 25 March 2013

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was convicted of various drug related offences – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration for trafficking in 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the declaration was properly made

Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), s 161B(3), s 159A

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213, cited
R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, cited
R v McDougall & Collas [2006] QCA 365; CA Nos 83 and 94 of 2006, 22 September 2006, cited
R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359, cited
R v Rizk [2004] QCA 382, cited

COUNSEL:

C A Cuthbert for the applicant/appellant
D R MacKenzie for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

O’Sullivans for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Muir J and I agree with what he has said therein. The orders should be as he proposes.

KEANE JA: I agree with the reasons of Muir J and with the orders proposed by his Honour.

MUIR J: The applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to the following offences:

Count 1: Trafficking in 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”) and methylamphetamine between 8 October 2003 and 31 March 2004;

Count 2: Unlawful production of cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams between 1 September 2003 and 28 October 2003;

Count 3: Possession of things used in connection with production of cannabis

Count 4 and 8: Unlawful supply of cannabis on various dates;

Counts 5, 6, 7 and 10: Unlawful supply of cocaine on various dates;

Count 9: Unlawful supply of gamma hydroxybutyric acid on a date between 11 December 2003 and 13 December 2003; and

Count 11: Unlawful possession of cocaine on 20 February 2004.

The sentences imposed on 5 December 2006 for the offences were:

Count 1: Eight years imprisonment with a serious violent offence…

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 Saunders

Details

AGLC: R v Saunders [2007] QCA 93
Case: [2007] QCA 93
Decision Date: 23 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Saunders, the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence for drug-related offences. The applicant had been convicted and sentenced to eight years imprisonment for trafficking in 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, along with a declaration that the offence involved serious violence. The applicant contested the severity of the sentence and the appropriateness of the serious violence offence declaration. The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the declaration was properly made.

The court examined the circumstances of the offence and the principles guiding sentencing in drug trafficking cases. It considered the nature and scale of the applicant's involvement in the drug trade, as well as the impact of the serious violence declaration on the overall sentence. The court determined that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive given the facts of the case and the mitigating factors presented. Furthermore, the court found that the declaration of serious violence was not warranted based on the evidence provided. Consequently, the court decided to allow the appeal against the sentence and set aside the declaration.

The court reimposed a term of imprisonment of eight years to be served concurrently with all other sentences the applicant was currently serving, with a parole release date of 25 March 2013. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the principles of justice and proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the punishment fits the crime while taking into account all relevant circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application and the appeal in respect of count one be allowed

2. That the serious violence offence declaration and sentence in respect of count one be set aside and a term of imprisonment of eight years be reimposed, to be served concurrently with all other sentences being served by the applicant, and with a parole release date of 25 March 2013

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 Saunders [2007] QCA 93
PARTIES:	R v SAUNDERS, Leslie Ronald (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 4 of 2007 SC No 1026 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2007
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. That the application and the appeal in respect of count one be allowed 2. That the serious violence offence declaration and sentence in respect of count one be set aside and a term of imprisonment of eight years be reimposed, to be served concurrently with all other sentences being served by the applicant, and with a parole release date of 25 March 2013
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was convicted of various drug related offences – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration for trafficking in 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the declaration was properly made Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), s 161B(3), s 159A Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213, cited R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, cited R v McDougall & Collas [2006] QCA 365; CA Nos 83 and 94 of 2006, 22 September 2006, cited R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359, cited R v Rizk [2004] QCA 382, cited
COUNSEL:	C A Cuthbert for the applicant/appellant D R MacKenzie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	O’Sullivans for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent