R v. Stewart - [2008] QSC 208

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stewart [2008] QSC 208

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
WENDY HEATHER STEWART
(defendant)

FILE NO:

Indictment No 287 of 2008

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 August 2008

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDER:

1. On each of counts 1 to 9 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for 18 months;

2. On each of counts 10, 11 and 12 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for nine months;

3. All imprisonment to be served concurrently;

4. Fix a parole release date of 25 August 2008

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Circumstances of offender – Imprisonment would result in substantial hardship for accused’s daughter

R v D’Arrigo, ex parte the Attorney General [2004] QCA 399 applied
R v T (1989) 47 A Crim R 29 applied

COUNSEL:

Crown: C Semmler
Respondent: P Nolan

SOLICITORS:

Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)
Respondent: Legal Aid Queensland

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 2008 QSC 208

FRYBERG J

Indictment No 287 of 2008

THE QUEEN

WENDY HEATHER STEWART

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/08/2008

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Wendy Stewart, you have been convicted on your own pleas of guilty of nine counts of supplying a dangerous drug, and three of possessing a dangerous drug and property obtained from supplying and possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams.

Police searched your house in February 2007. They found a bag containing a clipseal bag of cannabis weighing 53.4 grams. Within the bag there was a wallet of yours with nearly $2,500 of cash, another clipseal bag of cannabis weighing 1.7 grams and a clipseal bag of white powder weighing 0.328 grams of which 0.025 grams was methylamphetamine. You said that $1,500 of the money was yours, but that $875 had come from selling marijuana.

There was a purse containing several large clipseal bags with a white paste residue and a clipseal bag wrapped in newspaper which contained 48.5 odd grams of paste containing nearly 3.5 grams of methylamphetamine. You told police that the bags of cannabis were yours and that you'd sold quarter ounces of cannabis for $100.

You declined to name the persons to whom you had sold cannabis on a number of occasions. People would come to your house to buy cannabis. There were two sets of scales and a cabinet at the house that you used for your dealings, one of them being broken. You said that a friend had given you the methylamphetamine to give you a chance to make some money on it. You did not provide any information as to the person who supplied you with this material.

Cannabis is a drug which has serious effects on peoples' minds. For someone who is a schizophrenic or has even a predisposition towards schizophrenia it has the capability of tipping that person from a normal being into being a schizophrenic.…

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. Stewart

Details

AGLC: R v Stewart [2008] QSC 208
Case: [2008] QSC 208
Decision Date: 25 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v. Stewart, the accused was found guilty of multiple counts of fraud and theft. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into consideration the various factors required by law. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which had to balance the need for punishment with the potential impact on the accused’s family. The accused's daughter would suffer substantial hardship if the accused were to be imprisoned, which was a critical consideration in the sentencing process.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the severity of the offences and the appropriate punishment, while also considering the personal circumstances of the accused. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the crimes against the potential impact on the accused's family, specifically the hardship it would cause the accused's daughter. The sentencing principles mandated by law required the court to consider these factors alongside the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offences but also recognised the significant hardship that imprisonment would impose on the accused’s daughter. After careful consideration of the circumstances, the court determined that a sentence of 18 months imprisonment for counts 1 to 9, and nine months for counts 10, 11, and 12, was appropriate, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The court set a parole release date of 25 August 2008 to provide some certainty and structure to the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On each of counts 1 to 9 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for 18 months;

2. On each of counts 10, 11 and 12 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for nine months;

3. All imprisonment to be served concurrently;

4. Fix a parole release date of 25 August 2008

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 Stewart [2008] QSC 208
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v WENDY HEATHER STEWART (defendant)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 287 of 2008
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	25 August 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 August 2008
JUDGE:	Fryberg J
ORDER:	1. On each of counts 1 to 9 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for 18 months; 2. On each of counts 10, 11 and 12 sentence the prisoner to imprisonment for nine months; 3. All imprisonment to be served concurrently; 4. Fix a parole release date of 25 August 2008
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Circumstances of offender – Imprisonment would result in substantial hardship for accused’s daughter R v D’Arrigo, ex parte the Attorney General [2004] QCA 399 applied R v T (1989) 47 A Crim R 29 applied
COUNSEL:	Crown: C Semmler Respondent: P Nolan
SOLICITORS:	Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) Respondent: Legal Aid Queensland