R v Ta - [2016] QCA 305

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ta [2016] QCA 305

PARTIES:

R
v
TA, Lam Quoc
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 307 of 2015
SC No 961 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 3 December 2015

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 June 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philip McMurdo JJA and Peter Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INQADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date after two years – where the applicant was also sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 months imprisonment, 18 months imprisonment, and 18 months imprisonment for three counts of possessing dangerous drugs to which he had also pleaded guilty – where the applicant submits that sentencing decisions concerning his co-offenders demonstrate that the applicant’s sentence is manifestly excessive and that it should be reduced under the parity principle – where the applicant submits that an appropriate sentence is four years imprisonment suspended after 12 months, for an operational period of five years, for the trafficking count, with lesser concurrent sentences on the other counts – whether the applicant’s sentence is manifestly excessive

R v Dibb, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, SC No 857 of 2014, Mullins J, 2 November 2013, related
R v Falconi[2014] QCA 230, cited
R v KAQ; R v KAQ; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2015] QCA 98, related
R v OS[2016] QCA 278, cited
R v Yates[2006] QCA 101, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the appellant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lawler Magill for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug between 24 September 2012 and 13 February 2013. For that offence he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date after two years. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 months imprisonment, 18 months imprisonment, and 18 months imprisonment for three counts of possessing dangerous drugs on 9 and 12 February 2013, to which he also pleaded guilty. The applicant has applied for leave to appeal upon the ground that the sentence is manifestly excessive. He contends that an appropriate sentence is four and a half years imprisonment suspended after 12 months, for an operational period of five years, for the trafficking count, with lesser concurrent sentences on the other counts.

The applicant’s arguments primarily rely upon comparisons with decisions concerning his co-offenders in R v KAQ; R v KAQ; Ex…

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 Ta

Details

AGLC: R v Ta [2016] QCA 305
Case: [2016] QCA 305
Decision Date: 18 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ta, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and three counts of possessing dangerous drugs, sought to appeal against his sentence, which was seven years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date after two years, and concurrent terms for the other offences. The applicant contended that his sentence was manifestly excessive compared to those of his co-offenders and sought a reduction under the parity principle. He proposed an alternative sentence of four years imprisonment suspended after 12 months for the trafficking count, with lesser concurrent sentences for the other counts.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentencing decisions for his co-offenders, who received lesser sentences for similar offences, demonstrated a disparity that warranted a reduction in his sentence. The applicant further argued that a suspended sentence would be more appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The court analysed the principle of parity in sentencing and considered the applicant's arguments regarding the sentences of his co-offenders. The court noted that while the principle of parity is relevant, it is not the sole determinant of an appropriate sentence. The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the applicant's role, and the principles of sentencing. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant's sentence was not manifestly excessive and declined to interfere with the sentencing decision. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was therefore refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Ta [2016] QCA 305
PARTIES:	R v TA, Lam Quoc (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 307 of 2015 SC No 961 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 3 December 2015
DELIVERED ON:	18 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 June 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philip McMurdo JJA and Peter Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INQADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date after two years – where the applicant was also sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 months imprisonment, 18 months imprisonment, and 18 months imprisonment for three counts of possessing dangerous drugs to which he had also pleaded guilty – where the applicant submits that sentencing decisions concerning his co-offenders demonstrate that the applicant’s sentence is manifestly excessive and that it should be reduced under the parity principle – where the applicant submits that an appropriate sentence is four years imprisonment suspended after 12 months, for an operational period of five years, for the trafficking count, with lesser concurrent sentences on the other counts – whether the applicant’s sentence is manifestly excessive R v Dibb, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, SC No 857 of 2014, Mullins J, 2 November 2013, related R v Falconi[2014] QCA 230, cited R v KAQ; R v KAQ; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2015] QCA 98, related R v OS[2016] QCA 278, cited R v Yates[2006] QCA 101, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the appellant V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Lawler Magill for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent