R v Taylor

[1994] QCA 520

COURT OF APPEAL

FITZGERALD P
PINCUS JA

LEE J

[1994] QCA 520

CA No 359 of 1994
THE QUEEN
v.

MATTHEW COLIN TAYLOR Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 26/10/94
THE PRESIDENT: This is an application for leave to appeal
against sentences imposed in the trial division on
5 September 1994 on four counts of supplying a dangerous drug
to a minor. The applicant was convicted on his own plea and
was sentenced to imprisonment for one year on each count to be
served concurrently. He has appealed against the sentences on
the ground that they are manifestly excessive and that the
learned sentencing judge erred in law in that he placed
insufficient weight on a number of judgments placed before him
as comparable.

About 7 p.m. on 5 April 1994, the applicant was at home when the four minors, one girl aged 14 years, two girls aged 15 and a male aged 16 came to the house to see the applicant's younger brother with whom one of the girls was friendly. The applicant's brother was not at home and the four sat down with the applicant to watch television and wait for the applicant's brother. After a short time the applicant asked the others if they would like a joint. They all said that they would and the applicant produced a bag containing marijuana and some cigarette papers. A number of joints were made by the applicant and the others and they all smoked some of the drug.

Later that evening at approximately 10.30 p.m., police attended the house, following information which had been received that the applicant was supplying a dangerous drug to minors. The police entered by the back door and found the applicant and the four minors in the lounge room smoking. The applicant was arrested and taken to the police station. The four minors were later cautioned by police. At the police station the applicant declined to participate in an interview stating, "I'm guilty anyway, so what does it matter." Each of the four minors told police that they had previously used marijuana and some admitted using it regularly.

The applicant is 24 years of age and was married but is now divorced. He has no children and works with his father in a fencing business. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the sentencing Judge erred in law, in that his sentencing remarks showed that he was treating the applicant as the person who had introduced the minors to the drug and it was submitted that the sentenced imposed of one year's imprisonment might have been appropriate but only in circumstances where it was in fact the case that the minors had been introduced to the drug by the applicant. It was further submitted that the offence showed no signs of premeditation and there is no suggestion that the applicant profited from his conduct. Finally, it was submitted that the sentencing Judge placed insufficient weight upon two decisions of this Court in Condoleon, number 127 of 1993 and McPherson, number 77 of 1994.

The applicant has only minor criminal history, although it was noted on behalf of the respondent that whilst there are no offences of a similar nature to these the applicant was on a good behaviour bond at the time when these offences were committed. It seems to me important that there was no commercial element in the applicant's conduct and it was unpremeditated and that he did not introduce the minors to the drug. On the other hand, the provision of drugs to minors seems to me serious, even though they have had previous experience, and a sentence of imprisonment may well be appropriate. It is necessary to notice that the provision of drugs to minors who have previously smoked nonetheless forms part of the process by which they become more corrupted.

Having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. I will grant the application, allow the appeal, set aside the sentences imposed and substitute a term of imprisonment of four months in relation to each count. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

PINCUS JA: In the present case, the record discloses that there was some discussion of the decision in Condoleon and the primary Judge suggested that the psychiatric condition of the offender must have played a very prominent part in the result, a view with which I respectfully agree. The decision in Condoleon does not seem to me to stand as authority for the proposition that the supply of small amounts of drugs to minors is inevitably visited with a prison sentence.

In the present case, the circumstances however are such that
in my view the applicant was too harshly treated. The
circumstances have been explained by the learned presiding
Judge and I do not propose to recount them. I agree with the
order which His Honour proposes.
LEE J: I agree with the reasons that have just been delivered
and also the order proposed.

THE PRESIDENT: The order of the Court is application granted, appeal allowed, sentences imposed below set aside and in relation to each offence a sentence of four months' imprisonment is imposed. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

-----