SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Taylor [2006] QCA 459
PARTIES:
R
v
TAYLOR, Chez Steven
(applicant/appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 162 of 2006
SC No 438 of 2006DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
10 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 October 2006
JUDGES:
Jerrard and Keane JJA and Philip McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed
2. Appeal against sentence allowed
3. Vary the sentence imposed of seven years and four months imprisonment by fixing a parole eligibility date of 26 November 2008CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful trafficking of a dangerous drug, 11 counts of supplying a dangerous drug to another, two counts of possession of a dangerous drug – sentenced to seven years and four months imprisonment (in total) on the trafficking count – whether sentence is manifestly excessive – whether sentencing judge err in neither suspending sentence nor recommending consideration for release on parole at some point earlier than the half-way mark of that sentence
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160C(5)
R vBradforth [2003] QCA 183; CA No 423 of 2002, 9 May 2003, considered
R v Elizalde [2006] QCA 330; CA No 158 of 2006, 1 September 2006, consideredCOUNSEL:
P E Smith for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Fisher Dore for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
JERRARD JA: On 26 May 2006 Mr Taylor pleaded guilty to one count of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs, 11 counts of supplying dangerous drugs to another, and two counts of possession of dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to a total of seven years and four months imprisonment on the trafficking count, and has applied for leave to appeal, complaining that the sentence was rendered manifestly excessive because the learned sentencing judge had neither suspended it, nor recommended consideration for release on parole, at some point earlier than the halfway mark of that sentence.
Mr Taylor pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drugs cocaine, methylamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), and 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA). He admitted by his pleas supplying cocaine to an undercover police officer on nine separate occasions between 15 August 2004 and 27 November 2004. (The period of the trafficking charge was from 3 August 2004 to 27 November 2004). He also admitted to possessing the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine and ketamine on 25 February 2005, when police raided his residence. He was 21 when he offended, and 23 when sentenced; he had one prior finding against him of relevance, for possession of a dangerous drug…
Continue reading R v Taylor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Taylor [2006] QCA 459
- Case
- [2006] QCA 459
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had erred by not suspending the sentence or recommending parole eligibility at an earlier date. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence was proportionate to the offences committed and whether the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion appropriately. The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, the applicant's personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in the relevant legislation and case law.
In allowing the appeal against the sentence, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the offences to be of significant gravity, but the length of the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court also found that the sentencing judge had erred in not suspending the sentence or recommending parole eligibility at an earlier date. The court considered the principles of sentencing and the need for proportionality, and concluded that the applicant should be eligible for parole at a date earlier than the halfway mark of the sentence.
The court varied the sentence by fixing a parole eligibility date of 26 November 2008, allowing the applicant to be considered for parole earlier than originally determined. The court allowed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence and granted the appeal against the sentence, making the specified variation. This decision highlights the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to exercise discretion appropriately when considering parole eligibility.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed
2. Appeal against sentence allowed
3. Vary the sentence imposed of seven years and four months imprisonment by fixing a parole eligibility date of 26 November 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.