R v Searle - [2007] QCA 42

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Searle [2007] QCA 42

PARTIES:

R
v
SEARLE, Daniel Jacomb
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 209 of 2006
SC No 1070 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams and Keane JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Strike out the application for leave to appeal against sentence

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a thing used in connection with trafficking and three counts of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug - where principal witness for Crown was appellant's co-offender - where co-offender obtained benefit of reduced sentence under s 13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) - where appellant claimed co-offender fabricated evidence to obtain benefit - where appellant did not give evidence on advice of counsel - whether verdict of jury was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence or was unsafe or unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - where appellant sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 18 months for an operational period of three years for trafficking and lesser concurrent terms for the other offences - where allowance made for youth and lack of previous criminal history - whether sentence manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A

Ali v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 662; [2005] HCA 8, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA. I agree with the orders proposed by His Honour, and with his reasons.

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA. I agree with those reasons and with the orders proposed by him.

KEANE JA: On 19 July 2006, the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis sativa, one count of possession of a mobile phone that had been used in connection with the commission of the crime of trafficking in cannabis sativa, and three counts of unlawful possession of cannabis sativa, the quantity of which on each occasion exceeded 500 grams.

On the trafficking charge, the appellant was sentenced to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Searle and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] QCA 42
Decision Date: 16 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Searle involved the appellant, who was convicted on one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a thing used in connection with trafficking, and three counts of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug. The principal witness for the Crown was the appellant's co-offender, who had obtained a benefit of a reduced sentence under section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The appellant argued that the co-offender fabricated evidence to secure the benefit, and did not give evidence on the advice of counsel. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the evidence presented and considered the appellant's arguments. It was noted that the jury was entitled to believe the co-offender's evidence and that the appellant had not provided any counter-evidence. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable, and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's youth and lack of previous criminal history. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and struck out the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

In summary, the court found that the appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence was without merit and dismissed both the appeal and the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence be struck out.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Strike out the application for leave to appeal against sentence

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 Searle [2007] QCA 42
PARTIES:	R v SEARLE, Daniel Jacomb (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 209 of 2006 SC No 1070 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 February 2007
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams and Keane JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed 2. Strike out the application for leave to appeal against sentence
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of possessing a thing used in connection with trafficking and three counts of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug - where principal witness for Crown was appellant's co-offender - where co-offender obtained benefit of reduced sentence under s 13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) - where appellant claimed co-offender fabricated evidence to obtain benefit - where appellant did not give evidence on advice of counsel - whether verdict of jury was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence or was unsafe or unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - where appellant sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 18 months for an operational period of three years for trafficking and lesser concurrent terms for the other offences - where allowance made for youth and lack of previous criminal history - whether sentence manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A Ali v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 662; [2005] HCA 8, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent