R v Shailer - [2006] QCA 196

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Shailer [2006] QCA 196

PARTIES:

R
v
SHAILER, Victor Colin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 68 of 2006
SC No 968 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

7 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 June 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Keane JA
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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OTHER OFFENCES - where applicant convicted on his own plea of guilty on one count of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug morphine and one count of unlawful possession of a sum of money obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug knowing that it had been so obtained - where applicant sentenced in respect of each offence to concurrent sentences of six years imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community based release after two years - where applicant used false identities to obtain prescriptions for morphine which he then obtained and sold through retailers in a commercial way - where sentencing judge made an order forfeiting $90,000 in respect of the total amount derived by applicant - where applicant has lengthy history of minor criminal activity - where applicant has a number of medical conditions requiring ongoing treatment - whether the sentence imposed was excessive

R v Geary [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33, cited
R v Grima [2000] QCA 105; CA No 429 of 1999, 30 March 2000, considered
R v Macey [2002] QCA 271; CA No 371 of 2001, 29 July 2002, considered
R v O'Connor [2002] QCA 467; CA No 224 of 2002, 1 November 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA: On 2 March 2006, the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty on one count of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug morphine and one count of unlawful possession of a sum of money obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug, knowing that it had been so obtained.

He was sentenced in respect of each offence to concurrent sentences of six years imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community based release after serving two years of that period. The sentencing judge declared 423 days spent in custody prior to sentence as time served in relation to the offences.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against this sentence on the grounds that the term of imprisonment is excessive and that he "will be unable to get parole" and that,…

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 Shailer

Details

AGLC: R v Shailer [2006] QCA 196
Case: [2006] QCA 196
Decision Date: 7 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Shailer involved an appeal against sentence by the convicted individual who had pleaded guilty to charges of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug morphine and unlawful possession of money obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug. Shailer was sentenced to concurrent terms of six years imprisonment for each offence, with a recommendation for community-based release after two years. The sentencing judge also ordered the forfeiture of $90,000 derived from Shailer's criminal activities. The applicant's appeal focused on whether the sentence imposed was excessive, considering his history of minor criminal activity and medical conditions requiring ongoing treatment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was disproportionately harsh in light of the applicant's personal circumstances and the nature of the offences committed. The court considered whether the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and whether the sentence imposed had adequately reflected the seriousness of the offences. The court also had to determine whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted a reduction in sentence.

In its reasoning, the court noted that Shailer had used false identities to obtain prescriptions for morphine, which he then sold in a commercial manner. The court recognised the seriousness of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. However, the court also took into account Shailer's history of minor criminal activity and his medical conditions, which required ongoing treatment. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not excessive. The court rejected the applicant's appeal against sentence.

In its final orders, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The decision upheld the original sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, and the appeal was dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Shailer [2006] QCA 196
PARTIES:	R v SHAILER, Victor Colin (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 68 of 2006 SC No 968 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	7 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 June 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Keane JA 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OTHER OFFENCES - where applicant convicted on his own plea of guilty on one count of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug morphine and one count of unlawful possession of a sum of money obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug knowing that it had been so obtained - where applicant sentenced in respect of each offence to concurrent sentences of six years imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community based release after two years - where applicant used false identities to obtain prescriptions for morphine which he then obtained and sold through retailers in a commercial way - where sentencing judge made an order forfeiting $90,000 in respect of the total amount derived by applicant - where applicant has lengthy history of minor criminal activity - where applicant has a number of medical conditions requiring ongoing treatment - whether the sentence imposed was excessive R v Geary [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33, cited R v Grima [2000] QCA 105; CA No 429 of 1999, 30 March 2000, considered R v Macey [2002] QCA 271; CA No 371 of 2001, 29 July 2002, considered R v O'Connor [2002] QCA 467; CA No 224 of 2002, 1 November 2002, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent