R v Stagoll

[1999] QCA 147

99.147

COURT OF APPEAL
McPHERSON JA
PINCUS JA

MOYNIHAN J

CA No 321 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

BRENDAN LEE STAGOLL	Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 28/04/99
280499 T13/ST26 M/T COA88/99

MOYNIHAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal
against a sentence of eight years imprisonment with a
recommendation of eligibility after four years by a
participant in a group some 17 of which have been
convicted for their involvement in the knowing
importation of a large quantity of drugs. It can
justifiably be described as a large scale endeavour, as
is evidenced by the numbers involved and the range of

activities engaged in.

The sentences imposed are in the schedule below:

SCHEDULE OF SENTENCES

Name Plea Head Sentence Non-

Parole Period

ASHTON:  NG 9 years 4½ years

BROWN:  G 10 years 4 years

8½ years (Court of 4 years

(Court of Appeal)

Appeal)

CRONIN: G 8 years	3 years
EATON: G 8 years	3½ years
FOWLES: G 9 years	4 years
HEENAN: G 8 years	3 years

HILLIER:  G 8 years 3 years

HUDSON: G 8 years	3½ years
HUGHES: G 8 years	3 years

JACKSON:	NG 10 years	5 years
MAY:	G 10 years	5 years

MILLS: G 8 years	3 years
RAMEN: G 9 years	4 years

ROY, JA:	G	14 years	7 years
ROY, JH:	G	9 years	4 years

280499 T13/ST26 M/T COA88/99

STAGOLL:  G 8 years 4 years

VANDERLELIE: G 8 years 3½ years It is to be remarked that the lowest of the sentences imposed was eight years imprisonment which was imposed on nine of the participants.

The applicant was presented for trial together with a man named Ashton but after the trial had commenced he changed his plea in respect of the count for which he was sentenced to a plea of guilty, and the prosecution indicated that it would not proceed in respect of a further count of possession.

The role that the applicant played, largely in common with the other members of the group who received the eight year sentences, was to form part of what might be described as the landing detail or the loading detail, the group that dealt with the goods after their landing from a vessel in which they had been brought to Australia.

It is clear that there were two factors which bear on
the outcome of this appeal. The first essentially is
the effect the sentencing Judge gave to the plea of
guilty. It is clear from his sentencing remarks that he
took it into account but, one infers, on a discounted
basis compared to the effect given to the more timely
pleas of other participants in the enterprise whose role
was comparable to the applicant's.
280499 T13/ST26 M/T COA88/99

The sentencing Judge also declined to conclude that the applicant was remorseful in the sense that ought to be reflected in the sentence. He declined to accept as a circumstance of mitigation that the applicant had no expectation of anything other than a manual labourer's wage.

We have been directed to various elements of the personal circumstances of the applicant, most notably his age, the fact that he had no previous history and that he was well thought of by the large group of people who were prepared to come forward and recommend or support him to the Court.

As was remarked by Williams J who sentenced the bulk of the participants, those characteristics, perhaps with the exception of youth were notable among others of the group.

There is no doubt that once he became active in the pursuit of enterprise the applicant could have been under little doubt as to the magnitude of the enterprise.

Some differences in his actual involvement by comparison
to others have been pointed to, but to my mind they
don't constitute a distinction. He together with the
280499 D.1 T14/TW12 M/T COA88/99
other participants carried out whatever was asked of
them in the furtherance of the enterprise.

The sentencing Judge quite rightly emphasised the need to deter people from engaging in activities of the kind in which the applicant engaged. Without people who were prepared to act as he did these enterprises could not take place.

The Crown Prosecutor, in my view, rightly submits that there is a limited scope to differentiate on a personal basis among the participants in an enterprise such as this when the nature and extent of their activities simply reflect that each did what they were asked to do to further it.

In the circumstances to my mind it has not been demonstrated that the sentencing discretion miscarried.

It appropriately reflects the role, the time at which

the plea took place and an appropriate relationship
between the sentences imposed on other participants
whose activities or involvement were comparable, but
whose sentences reflect a timely plea of guilty and in
some cases at least a finding of remorse in the relevant

sense made by the Judge responsible.

I would therefore refuse leave to appeal against
sentence.
280499 D.1 T14/TW12 M/T COA88/99
McPHERSON JA: I agree.

PINCUS JA: The case appears to me to be a marginal one in the sense that while, in my opinion, the sentence imposed was rather high in relation to other sentences as imposed on co-offenders, the question which has troubled me is whether it is sufficiently high to warrant the Court's interference.

I have ultimately reached the conclusion that it is not.

That is, whereas the application is one which is by no

means frivolous and has substance, I agree that it must
be dismissed.

McPHERSON JA: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

-----