R v Squires - [2016] QCA 348

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Squires [2016] QCA 348
PARTIES:	R v SQUIRES, Dean David (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 188 of 2016 SC No 772 of 2014 SC No 921 of 2015 SC No 664 of 2016 SC No 682 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 24 June 2016
DELIVERED ON:	23 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 November 2016
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Ann Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 2. Appeal against sentence allowed. 3. Sentence varied by ordering that the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 1 of Indictment 921 of 2015 be reduced to 12 months and be served cumulatively upon the terms of imprisonment imposed on Indictment 772 of 2014. 4. The sentence and orders imposed at first instance are otherwise confirmed. 5. The parties are to make submissions as to the appropriate parole date in accordance with these reasons and orders by 4.00 pm on 3 February 2017.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – EFFECT OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT ON PRISONER – where the applicant pleaded guilty to eleven summary charges and sixteen indictable offences including two counts of trafficking – where the first count of trafficking was more serious than the second count of trafficking – where the second count of trafficking attracted the provisions of s 5(2) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – where the applicant was sentenced to four and five years imprisonment for the first and second counts of trafficking respectively – where the applicant was required to serve 80 per cent of the five year sentence – whether the learned sentencing judge erred by imposing a greater term of imprisonment for the less serious count of trafficking on which s 5(2) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) applied – whether the learned sentencing judge erred by failing to consider the appropriateness of the sentence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – EFFECT OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT ON PRISONER – where the applicant pleaded guilty to eleven summary charges and sixteen indictable offences including two counts of trafficking – where the applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of five years imprisonment – whether the learned sentencing judge erred by failing to moderate the sentence to take into account the applicant’s psychiatric illness CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to eleven summary charges and sixteen indictable offences including two counts of trafficking – where the applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of five years imprisonment – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Corrective Services…

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 Squires

Details

AGLC: R v Squires [2016] QCA 348
Case: [2016] QCA 348
Decision Date: 23 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Squires involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to eleven summary charges and sixteen indictable offences, including two counts of trafficking. The more severe count of trafficking was distinguished from the second count, which attracted provisions under section 5(2) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The applicant was sentenced to four years for the first count and five years for the second count, with a requirement to serve 80 per cent of the five-year sentence. The applicant appealed against the sentence on several grounds, including whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a greater term of imprisonment for the less serious count of trafficking and in failing to consider the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the applicant's psychiatric illness.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a greater term of imprisonment for the less serious count of trafficking and whether the judge failed to consider the appropriateness of the sentence given the applicant's psychiatric illness. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence imposed for the second count of trafficking was disproportionate to the offence, especially considering the mandatory nature of the sentencing provisions under section 5(2) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The applicant also contended that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the mitigating factor of the applicant's psychiatric condition, which should have resulted in a moderated sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in imposing a greater term of imprisonment for the less serious count of trafficking, which was subject to mandatory sentencing provisions. The court held that the sentence for the second count should not have exceeded the sentence for the first count. Furthermore, the court determined that the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently consider the applicant's psychiatric illness, which warranted a moderated sentence. As a result, the court allowed the appeal against the sentence and varied the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 1 of Indictment 921 of 2015, reducing it to 12 months and ordering it to be served cumulatively with the terms of imprisonment imposed on Indictment 772 of 2014. The court confirmed the other sentences and orders imposed at first instance but required the parties to make submissions on the appropriate parole date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2. Appeal against sentence allowed.

3. Sentence varied by ordering that the term of imprisonment imposed on Count 1 of Indictment 921 of 2015 be reduced to 12 months and be served cumulatively upon the terms of imprisonment imposed on Indictment 772 of 2014.

4. The sentence and orders imposed at first instance are otherwise confirmed.

5. The parties are to make submissions as to the appropriate parole date in accordance with these reasons and orders by 4.00 pm on 3 February 2017.

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.