R v Staines - [2022] QCA 187

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Staines [2022] QCA 187

PARTIES:

R
v
STAINES, Zachariah Tibon Gary
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 126 of 2022
SC No 101 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 16 June 2022 (Mellifont J)

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 September 2022

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Dalton JA and Williams J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs over a period of almost nine months and associated drug offences – where the offences were committed while on parole for previous dangerous drug offences for which he had been sentenced in the Magistrates Court – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months for the trafficking offence cumulative upon the sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court and he was convicted and not further punished for the other offences – where parole eligibility was fixed at eight months after the date of sentence – where the applicant was released on bail to rehabilitation facilities as a condition of bail and he stayed at residential rehabilitation facilities for almost 13 months until sentence – where 70 days of presentence custody was ordered not to be taken into account as imprisonment already served under the sentence – whether the applicant’s time in quasi-custodial environments in rehabilitation facilities after being granted bail and the 70 days of presentence custody made a sentence that returned him to custody manifestly excessive – whether the sentence imposed for the trafficking offence in setting the parole eligibility date after the applicant had served eight months in custody (which included almost five months outstanding under the Magistrates Court sentence) was manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 209, s 211
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 156A, s 159A, s 160F

Akoka v R [2017] VSCA 214, considered
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Braeckmans[2022] QCA 25, considered
R v Degn (2021) 7 QR 190; [2021] QCA 33, cited
R v Delaney (2003) 59 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCCA 342, cited
R v Hawke[2021] QCA 179, cited

COUNSEL:

T R Morgans for the applicant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lumme Rynderman Legal for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 16 June 2022 Mr Staines pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, (count 1) four counts of possessing a dangerous drug (counts 2 to 5) and one count of possessing a thing for use in connection with trafficking in dangerous drugs (count 6). He also pleaded guilty to two summary charges. The trafficking…

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 Staines

Details

AGLC: R v Staines [2022] QCA 187
Case: [2022] QCA 187
Decision Date: 27 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Staines, was sentenced to imprisonment for trafficking in dangerous drugs and associated drug offences, after having pleaded guilty. The sentence of imprisonment was to run cumulatively with sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court for previous drug offences. The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court was asked to consider the time Staines had spent in quasi-custodial environments in rehabilitation facilities after being granted bail and the 70 days of presentence custody, in addition to the eight months he had served in custody. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the time Staines had spent in quasi-custodial environments in rehabilitation facilities after being granted bail and the 70 days of presentence custody. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the sentence was cumulative to the sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court and the parole eligibility date was set after Staines had served eight months in custody, which included almost five months outstanding under the Magistrates Court sentence. The Court found that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

In considering the appeal, the Court of Appeal took into account the seriousness of the offences, the need to protect the community and deter others, and the principles of parity and proportionality. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was cumulative to the sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court and the parole eligibility date was set after Staines had served eight months in custody. The Court found that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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 Staines [2022] QCA 187
PARTIES:	R v STAINES, Zachariah Tibon Gary (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 126 of 2022 SC No 101 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 16 June 2022 (Mellifont J)
DELIVERED ON:	27 September 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 September 2022
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Dalton JA and Williams J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs over a period of almost nine months and associated drug offences – where the offences were committed while on parole for previous dangerous drug offences for which he had been sentenced in the Magistrates Court – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months for the trafficking offence cumulative upon the sentences imposed in the Magistrates Court and he was convicted and not further punished for the other offences – where parole eligibility was fixed at eight months after the date of sentence – where the applicant was released on bail to rehabilitation facilities as a condition of bail and he stayed at residential rehabilitation facilities for almost 13 months until sentence – where 70 days of presentence custody was ordered not to be taken into account as imprisonment already served under the sentence – whether the applicant’s time in quasi-custodial environments in rehabilitation facilities after being granted bail and the 70 days of presentence custody made a sentence that returned him to custody manifestly excessive – whether the sentence imposed for the trafficking offence in setting the parole eligibility date after the applicant had served eight months in custody (which included almost five months outstanding under the Magistrates Court sentence) was manifestly excessive Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 209, s 211 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 156A, s 159A, s 160F Akoka v R [2017] VSCA 214, considered Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Braeckmans[2022] QCA 25, considered R v Degn (2021) 7 QR 190; [2021] QCA 33, cited R v Delaney (2003) 59 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCCA 342, cited R v Hawke[2021] QCA 179, cited
COUNSEL:	T R Morgans for the applicant S L Dennis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Lumme Rynderman Legal for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent