R v Sutton - [2013] QCA 151

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sutton [2013] QCA 151

PARTIES:

R
v
SUTTON, Colin Christopher
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 38 of 2013
SC No 544 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

17 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 June 2013

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug – where he was sentenced to imprisonment for five years with a non-parole period fixed at two years and six months – where the applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.2

Bertilone v The Queen (2009) 197 A Crim R 78; [2009] WASCA 149, considered
Chong v R [2011] NSWCCA 182, cited
De Bonde v The Queen [2002] WASCA 251, considered
R v Tran (2007) 172 A Crim R 436; [2007] QCA 221, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G R Rice QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

MULLINS J: On 29 January 2013 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of importing a marketable quantity of a border control drug, cocaine, charged under s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years. A declaration was made under s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) in respect of pre-sentence custody of 182 days. The non-parole period was fixed at two years and six months. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The applicant was 52 years old when he committed the offence. He is an Australian citizen, but had been residing in the Philippines where he has a partner and a young child.

The applicant has a criminal history in New South Wales spanning the period 1987 to 2004. He committed the offence of knowingly taking part in the supply of the prohibited drug, LSD, in 1993 and was sentenced to a minimum term of two years.

The applicant arrived at Brisbane Airport from Manila on 31 July 2012. Customs officers took swabs from the applicant’s wallet and his mobile telephone which were positive for cocaine. The applicant admitted to them he had four packages secreted in his anus. He was admitted to hospital where he passed the packages. The contained a total of 158.7 grams of white powder which, on analysis, was…

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 Sutton

Details

AGLC: R v Sutton [2013] QCA 151
Case: [2013] QCA 151
Decision Date: 17 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sutton, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the court. He was sentenced to imprisonment for five years with a non-parole period fixed at two years and six months. The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, warranting an appeal against the sentence. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the relevant legal principles and precedents.

The court examined the circumstances of the case, including the nature and extent of the offence, the applicant's criminal history, and the sentencing principles applicable to such cases. It considered the principles established in previous cases, such as R v Parker, to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court also took into account the seriousness of the offence, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the relevant legal principles, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and was in line with the sentencing principles applicable to such cases. The court held that there were no grounds for interference with the sentence, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. This decision reinforces the importance of upholding the principles of justice and proportionality in the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Sutton [2013] QCA 151
PARTIES:	R v SUTTON, Colin Christopher (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 38 of 2013 SC No 544 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	17 June 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 June 2013
JUDGES:	Muir and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug – where he was sentenced to imprisonment for five years with a non-parole period fixed at two years and six months – where the applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.2 Bertilone v The Queen (2009) 197 A Crim R 78; [2009] WASCA 149, considered Chong v R [2011] NSWCCA 182, cited De Bonde v The Queen [2002] WASCA 251, considered R v Tran (2007) 172 A Crim R 436; [2007] QCA 221, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G R Rice QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent