SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Sharkey; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 118
PARTIES:
R
v
SHARKEY, Leif Juyana
(respondent)
EX PARTE THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)FILE NO:
CA No 352 of 2008
SC No 84 of 2007
SC No 132 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
8 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
1 April 2009
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Mullins J
Joint reasons for judgment of McMurdo P and Mullins J; separate reasons of Chesterman JA dissenting in partORDERS:
1.Appeal allowed.
2.Set aside the parole eligibility date fixed at 1 June 2010 and substitute a parole eligibility date fixed at 1 March 2012.
3.The sentences imposed at first instance on both indictments are otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where respondent was charged with 17 drug related offences – where respondent pleaded guilty to the offences – where respondent was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for trafficking methylamphetamine – where respondent was sentenced to lesser concurrent sentences for other offences – where parole eligibility was after two years and 11 months – whether given the seriousness of the offending the sentence was inadequate
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(f)
AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, considered
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, considered
R v Bird and Schipper (2000) 110 A Crim R 394; [2000] QCA 94, followed
R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183, considered
R v Elizalde [2006] QCA 330, considered
R v Jenkins, Rollason and Brophy [2008] QCA 369, cited
R v Johnson [2007] QCA 433, cited
R v Melano; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [1995] 2 Qd R 186; [1994] QCA 523, followed
R v Rizk & Raciti [2004] QCA 359, cited
R v Rodd; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2008] QCA 341, distinguished
R v Tilley; ex parte A-G [1999] QCA 424, consideredCOUNSEL:
A Moynihan SC, with L Brisick, for the appellant
J D Henry SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
O’Reilly Stevens Bovey Lawyers for the respondent
McMURDO P AND MULLINS J: The Attorney-General contends that the sentences imposed on the respondent, Leif Juyana Sharkey, in the Supreme Court at Cairns on 5 December 2008 for 17 drug-related offences was manifestly inadequate. On the first indictment, Sharkey was charged with possessing in excess of 500 grams of cannabis (count 1); possession of lysergide (count 2); possession of methylamphetamine (count 3); and possession of MDMA (count 4). All these offences occurred on 3 June 2004. The second indictment concerned offences committed essentially in October and November 2006: three counts of receiving stolen property (a flat-screen TV, car tyres and rims, and television…
Continue reading R v Sharkey; ex parte
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Sharkey; ex parte [2009] QCA 118
- Case
- [2009] QCA 118
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred on whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The respondent contended that the nine-year sentence was insufficient considering the gravity of the drug trafficking activities. The court had to assess the proportionality of the sentence in light of the respondent’s offending and determine if the trial judge's sentencing decision was correct. Additionally, the court needed to consider if there were grounds for interference with the original sentencing decision.
The court found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate in relation to the gravity of the drug trafficking activities. The trial judge did not sufficiently account for the large scale of the respondent's involvement in the trafficking of methylamphetamine. The court determined that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar future activities. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and adjusted the parole eligibility date to 1 March 2012, while confirming the other aspects of the original sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.Appeal allowed.
2.Set aside the parole eligibility date fixed at 1 June 2010 and substitute a parole eligibility date fixed at 1 March 2012.
3.The sentences imposed at first instance on both indictments are otherwise confirmed.
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.