R v SBK

[2009] QCA 107

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SBK [2009] QCA 107

PARTIES:

R
v
SBK
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No 32 of 2009
SC No 13 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 April 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,

each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in MDMA – where applicant sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment with a parole release after six months – where applicant’s confession sole basis for charge – whether sentencing judge adequately considered confession

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – RESPONSE TO CHARGES – CO-OPERATION WITH POLICE OR ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES – where applicant provided assistance to police – where assistance led to a number of other arrests – whether adequate consideration given to cooperation when sentencing

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
R v Bagnall[2005] QCA 20, considered
R v Gladkowski (2000) 115 A Crim R 446; [2000] QCA 352, cited
R v McAway [2008] QCA 401, considered
R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos [2007] QCA 266, considered

COUNSEL:

G P Lynham for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. McMURDO P:  I agree that this application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

1. As Chesterman JA explains,[1] the applicant was entitled to a very significant discount in his sentence because of his remarkable cooperation with the authorities.  He not only confessed to conduct with which he would not have been charged but for his admissions, but he also provided valuable assistance to the police in respect of other offenders.

   [1]See reasons at [12]-[14].

1. Courts recognise the need for deterrence in cases involving significant drug trafficking.  This Court's observations to that effect in R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos[2] were in the context of the sentencing of high level, major traffickers in an assortment of Sch 1 and Sch 2 drugs to terms of imprisonment of 13 and 15 years.  R v McAway,[3] where this Court made similar observations, was also a more serious case of trafficking than the present street-level offending in that McAway was a level above a street dealer.[4]  This Court concluded that McAway's sentence of five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months was at the top of, but within, the appropriate sentencing range in that case.  The present applicant's trafficking in MDMA was at street-level.  That does not mean that deterrence is not a relevant sentencing principle.  Of course,…