Legal Research
Cases
R v Taylor

R v Taylor

Case [2005] QCA 379 14 October 2005

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379
PARTIES: R
v
TAYLOR, Dylan
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 192 of 2005 SC No 528 of 2005
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 14 October 2005
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 3 October 2005
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Douglas 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 dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – applicant convicted on his own pleas of guilty to drug trafficking and various other drug-related offences – for drug trafficking the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after two years for an operational period of five years – concurrent sentences of up to two years imprisonment imposed on the other offences – applicant trafficked speed and ecstasy for a three month period – applicant made confession of trafficking to police when searched – applicant was not a drug user – applicant’s counsel conceded that the five year sentence was within range – whether suspending the sentence after two years was manifestly excessive
R v Bellino [1999] QCA 106; (1999) 105 A Crim R 137,
considered
R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27
August 2003, considered
R v Rizk [2004] QCA 382; CA No 224 of 2004, 15 October
2004, considered
R v Christopher Taylor, unreported, Supreme Court of
Queensland, de Jersey CJ, 1 March 2005, considered
COUNSEL: M J Byrne QC for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Jerrard JA's reasons for refusing the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
JERRARD JA: On 12 July 2005 Dylan Taylor pleaded guilty to one count of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in dangerous drugs, two counts of unlawfully supplying a dangerous drug to another, two counts of possession of a dangerous drug, one count of possession of a dangerous drug with a circumstance of aggravation, and one count of possession of things used in connection with the commission of the crime of trafficking. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment, suspended after two years for an operational period of five years, on the count of trafficking; to two years imprisonment concurrent on the two counts of supplying, on the count of possession with the circumstance of aggravation, and on one of the counts of possession; to six months imprisonment concurrent on the other count of possession, and to twelve months concurrent on the count of possession of things used. He has applied for leave to appeal against those sentences, contending they are…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379
Case: [2005] QCA 379
Decision Date: 14/10/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant appealed against his sentence after being convicted on his own pleas of guilty to drug trafficking and various other drug-related offences. The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment suspended after two years for an operational period of five years for the drug trafficking charge, along with concurrent sentences of up to two years imprisonment for the other offences. The applicant had trafficked speed and ecstasy over a three-month period and made a confession to the police when searched. Notably, the applicant was not a drug user. Counsel for the applicant conceded that the five-year sentence was within the appropriate range but argued that suspending the sentence after two years was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the decision to suspend the five-year sentence after two years was manifestly excessive. The applicant's counsel argued that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently considered the mitigating factors in the case, particularly the applicant's clean criminal record and lack of drug use, which distinguished his case from others involving drug trafficking. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the nature and scale of the offending, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was so disproportionate as to be manifestly excessive.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offences committed. The sentencing judge had carefully considered the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, including the applicant's clean criminal record and the scale of the drug trafficking activity. The court held that the decision to suspend the sentence after two years was not manifestly excessive, as it still imposed a significant penalty on the applicant and served as a deterrent against future offending. The court concluded that the sentence reflected an appropriate balance between punishment and deterrence, and that there were no grounds for allowing an appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379

Most Recent Citation

R v Turner [2006] QCA 133

Cases citing this decision · 20 of 20 shown

R v Lat
[2021] QCA 104 Para 17

…ths and in the second case with the term suspended after two years, were imposed. [2][2015] QCA 102. [3](2008) 191 A Crim R 475; [2008] QCA 401. [4][2005] QCA 379.…
R v Rowland
[2020] QCA 98

…The sentences of five years imposed in R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379 and R v McAway (2008) 191 A Crim R 475; [2008] QCA 401 for trafficking, which were not set aside on appeal and which were discussed by the Court of Appeal in Connolly , lend some support to the sentence imposed by his Honour in the present case, eve…
R v Squires
[2016] QCA 348 Para 15

…ion. McMahon was sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after two years in circumstances where he was heavily addicted. [4][2003] QCA 369. [5][2005] QCA 379. [6][2008] QCA 414.…
R v Saggers
[2016] QCA 344 Para 8

…ur years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility after 15 months, reflect a materially lower level of overall culpability than is present here. [17][2005] QCA 379. [18][2006] QCA 193. [19][2007] QCA 418.…
R v Borowicz
[2016] QCA 211 Para 2

…5] R v Baradel [26] and R v C’Ward [27] in making the submission that the sentence imposed is not manifestly excessive.[28] [22][2016] QCA 132. [23][2005] QCA 379. [24][2008] QCA 401. [25][2009] QCA 314. [26][2016] QCA 114. [27][2014] QCA 15. [28]Outline for the Respondent para 19.…
R v Thompson
[2016] QCA 196 Para 19

…McAway .[6] [1]As to which, see the discussion in R v Clark [2016] QCA 173 at [3]-[6] per McMurdo P and [31]-[34] per Morrison JA. [2]At [28]. [3][2005] QCA 379 (“ Taylor ”). [4][2009] QCA 314 (“ Challacombe ”). [5][2015] QCA 102 (“ Mikula ”). [6](2008) 191 A Crim R 475 (“ McAway ”).…
R v Clark
[2016] QCA 173 Para 32

…old offender with no criminal history whose offending was at the lower end of a drug trafficking network.” [40][2008] QCA 401. ( McAway ) [41][2005] QCA 379. ( Taylor ) [42] Challacombe at [15], Holmes and Muir JJA concurring. Internal footnotes omitted.…
R v Connolly
[2016] QCA 132 Para 26

…ney.[10] He had no prior criminal history, was remorseful, provided excellent references and presented with positive rehabilitative prospects. [9][2005] QCA 379. [10][2005] QCA 379 at [7]. The penalty at the time for trafficking in MDMA and MDEA (Schedule 2 drugs) was 20 not 25 years.…
R v Mikula
[2015] QCA 102 Para 22

…The prosecutor at sentence by way of comparable cases relied upon R v Taylor [4] and R v Challacombe [5] and R v McAway .[6] [4][2005] QCA 379. [5][2009] QCA 314. [6][2008] QCA 401.…
R v Cunniffe
[2013] QSC 330

…The Crown relied on the authority of Taylor [2005] QCA 379 in support of a submission that the appropriate sentence on the trafficking charge should be six years imprisonment. The sentence imposed in Taylor was five years, however it seems to me the offending in Taylor was less than the offending here. Mr Taylor…
R v Reid
[2013] QCA 190 Para 1

…he applicant’s counsel told the Court that he did not cavil about that range.[10] [6]AB 43 Tr1-26 LL35-45. [7][2007] QCA 309. [8][2006] QCA 193. [9][2005] QCA 379. [10]AB 48 Tr1-31 LL8-9.…
R v Jobsz
[2013] QCA 5 Para 1

…this was, as said, a case of not insubstantial trafficking in two schedule 1 drugs, albeit carried on over a shortish period. In light of R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379 and R v McAway [2008] QCA 401, the four and a half year term imposed by Her Honour fell within an appropriate range. But as acknowledged by Mr Cash,…
R v Hennig
[2010] QCA 244 Para 1

…ntence of no greater than five years imprisonment should be imposed, with lesser concurrent sentences on all remaining counts. [24]CA No 192 of 2005, [2005] QCA 379.…
R v Challacombe
[2009] QCA 314 Para 1

…er two years was imposed on a 20 year old offender with no criminal history whose offending was at the lower end of a drug trafficking network.[4] [3][2005] QCA 379. [4]See also R v Casagrande [2009] QCA 1.…
R v McAway
[2008] QCA 401 Para 1

…erately high turnover. She submitted, relying on R v Dylan Taylor ,[1] that a head sentence of about five to six years imprisonment was warranted. [1][2005] QCA 379.…
R v. Keenan
[2007] QCA 411

…CA No 224 of 2004, 15 October 2007, cited R v Murray [2006] QCA 154; CA No 27 of 2006, 12 May 2007, cited R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379; CA No 192 of 2005, 14 October 2005, cited COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf M R Byrne for the respondent SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf Direct…
R v O'Brien
[2006] QCA 482

…ted R v Barton [2006] QCA 367; CA No 25 of 2006, 22 September 2006, considered R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183, cited R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379; CA No 192 of 2005, 14 October 2005, cited R v Raciti [2004] QCA 359; CA No 229 of 2004, 29 September 2004, considered COUNSEL: M J Byrne QC for the applicant B G Campbell f…
R v Coleman
[2006] QCA 442 Para 1

…sentence, and to his Honour's recommendation for early consideration for parole. [1] R v Bellino [1999] QCA 106; (1999) 105 A Crim R 137; R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379; CA No 192 of 2005, 14 October 2005.…
R v Tytherleigh
[2006] QCA 193

…appropriate sentencing range R v Bagnall [2005] QCA 20; CA No 10 of 2005, 11 February 2005, distinguished R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379; CA No 192 of 2005, 14 October 2005, considered COUNSEL: A J Rafter SC for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director…
R v Turner
[2006] QCA 133 Para 1

…Counsel for the applicant referred to the decisions of this court in R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379 and R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435 in support of his submission that the head sentence should have been suspended at an earlier point of time than after serving two years. In each of those cases the head sentence was five…

View all 20 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 3 of 3 shown

R v Rizk
[2004] QCA 382 Para 5

…His counsel, Mr M Byrne QC, relied on the sentences imposed in the matter of R v Rizk [2004] QCA 382, and the sentence imposed at first instance in R v Christopher Taylor on 1 March 2005, to support the submission that the unsuspended part of the five year sentence was manifestly excessive in length. Mr Byrne als…
R v McMahon
[2003] QCA 369 Para 13

…In R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369 that offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in both methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after two years, for an operational period of five years. He was 40 years old when sentenced, and while he had a criminal history for prio…
R v Bellino
[1999] QCA 106

…e year sentence was within range – whether suspending the sentence after two years was manifestly excessive R v Bellino [1999] QCA 106; (1999) 105 A Crim R 137, considered R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered R v Rizk [2004] QCA 382; CA No 224 of 2004, 15 October 2004, conside…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379
PARTIES:	R v TAYLOR, Dylan (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 192 of 2005 SC No 528 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 October 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 October 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Douglas 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 dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – applicant convicted on his own pleas of guilty to drug trafficking and various other drug-related offences – for drug trafficking the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after two years for an operational period of five years – concurrent sentences of up to two years imprisonment imposed on the other offences – applicant trafficked speed and ecstasy for a three month period – applicant made confession of trafficking to police when searched – applicant was not a drug user – applicant’s counsel conceded that the five year sentence was within range – whether suspending the sentence after two years was manifestly excessive
R v Bellino [1999] QCA 106; (1999) 105 A Crim R 137, considered R v McMahon [2003] QCA 369; CA No 199 of 2003, 27 August 2003, considered R v Rizk [2004] QCA 382; CA No 224 of 2004, 15 October 2004, considered R v Christopher Taylor, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, de Jersey CJ, 1 March 2005, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent