R v Slivo - [2007] QCA 64

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Slivo [2007] QCA 64

PARTIES:

R
v
SLIVO, Raid Mansour
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 344 of 2006
SC No 49 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application 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 – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in Schedule 1 and 2 dangerous drugs under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – where applicant sentenced to 13 years imprisonment – where applicant contends sentence was manifestly excessive – whether sentencing Judge gave insufficient weight to plea of guilty – whether receiving the same sentence as co-accused gives rise to a “justifiable sense of grievance”

R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, cited
R v George [2001] QCA 135; CA No 339 of 2000, 6 April 2001, cited
R v Matasaru [2000] QCA 246; CA No 24 of 2000, 19 June 2000, cited
R v Omer-Noori [2006] QCA 311; CA No 50 of 2006, 25 August 2006, considered
R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359; CA No 229 of 2004, 29 September 2004, cited

COUNSEL:

S Di Carlo for the applicant (pro bono)
M D Nicolson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

McMURDO P: The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Holmes JA.

HOLMES JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of 13 years imprisonment imposed on him on one count of trafficking in heroin, methylamphetamine, cocaine and 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine between 1 November 2003 and 13 April 2004. He had pleaded guilty to that charge, and also to six counts on an earlier indictment, which resulted in lesser, concurrent sentences. He makes no complaint in respect of those, but he contends that his sentence on the trafficking count was manifestly excessive, on two bases: that insufficient weight was given to his plea of guilty, which ought to have attracted a greater discount; and that his having received the same sentence as that imposed on a co-accused, Omer-Noori, gives rise to a “justifiable sense of grievance”.

The offences

The earlier indictment included four counts of supplying methylamphetamine to an undercover police officer, over a period of about a month in 2002. In those transactions, 21.988 grams of powder, containing 2.392 grams of methamphetamine, changed hands for $3010. The remaining counts were one count of possessing things used in connection with supplying dangerous drugs (scales and two mobile phones) and…

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 Slivo

Details

AGLC: R v Slivo [2007] QCA 64
Case: [2007] QCA 64
Decision Date: 9 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slivo involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge. The applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing Judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the plea of guilty. Additionally, the applicant contended that receiving the same sentence as a co-accused gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant also sought to argue that the sentencing Judge did not appropriately consider the plea of guilty and that the parity of sentences between the applicant and the co-accused warranted a reconsideration of the sentence. The court had to evaluate the arguments presented by the applicant and determine whether the sentence was indeed excessive or if it was within the bounds of what could be considered appropriate given the nature of the offence.

In dismissing the application, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and considered that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime. Furthermore, the court found that the sentencing Judge had adequately considered the plea of guilty and that the parity of sentences did not inherently justify a reduction in the sentence. The court was satisfied that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

No orders were made in favour of the applicant. The application to reduce the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Slivo [2007] QCA 64
PARTIES:	R v SLIVO, Raid Mansour (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 344 of 2006 SC No 49 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 March 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application 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 – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in Schedule 1 and 2 dangerous drugs under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – where applicant sentenced to 13 years imprisonment – where applicant contends sentence was manifestly excessive – whether sentencing Judge gave insufficient weight to plea of guilty – whether receiving the same sentence as co-accused gives rise to a “justifiable sense of grievance” R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, cited R v George [2001] QCA 135; CA No 339 of 2000, 6 April 2001, cited R v Matasaru [2000] QCA 246; CA No 24 of 2000, 19 June 2000, cited R v Omer-Noori [2006] QCA 311; CA No 50 of 2006, 25 August 2006, considered R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359; CA No 229 of 2004, 29 September 2004, cited
COUNSEL:	S Di Carlo for the applicant (pro bono) M D Nicolson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent