R v Thomas

[1992] QCA 39

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 039

FITZGERALD P
PINCUS JA

THOMAS J

CA NO 299 OF 1991

THE QUEEN

v.

RODNEY COLIN THOMAS	Applicant
BRISBANE ... DATE 27/2/92
JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: Thomas J. will deliver the judgment of the Court.

THOMAS J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed with respect to a number of drug-related offences. The applicant was charged with seven counts of supply of cannabis and two of cultivation.

The application, which was argued by the applicant in person, relies upon two principal grounds; one of alleged disparity in sentence imposed upon other offenders, and the general ground that it is manifestly excessive.

I leave aside for the moment the question whether there is any genuine disparity revealed in relation to sentences said to have been imposed upon other persons. The circumstances placed before the learning sentencing judge show that the applicant was a willing cog in the marijuana trade in the district in which he resides. Unfortunately, he has an extensive criminal history including a number of prior convictions with respect to the use of and association with the same drug.

The learned sentencing judge examined the details which came from an undercover operation. The applicant introduced the undercover officer to other persons who supplied directly to him. The total quantity involved was 124.6 grams and payments totalled approximately $1,730. The quantity of 124.6 grams was not challenged during the sentencing procedure and it is too late to attempt to do so now.

Having regard to the past record of the applicant, who had been given custodial terms five times previously including a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment on 30 October 1989, it cannot be said that a sentence of two years' imprisonment for ongoing activity of this kind was excessive or beyond the range reasonably open to the learned sentencing judge.

2

There remains, therefore, the question whether there is any perceived disparity between the sentence imposed on the applicant and sentences imposed on other persons who were to some extent associated with the operation. Persons named Palmer, Hodges, McKay and Jones were mentioned. They apparently were dealt wit in Magistrates Courts, either Atherton or Mareeba. They were not charged as co-offenders.

So far as any information brought before this Court is concerned, they do not appear to have been charged with the cultivation which the applicant is charged with. They do not appear to have the same criminal history or to have been charged with the same number of offences. In short, there is no basis for believing that the sentences imposed upon them should have been the same or similar to those which should be adjudged appropriate for this particular applicant. I am unable to perceive any disparity or reason to believe that there is any legitimate sense of grievance to be entertained with respect to the manner in which other persons were dealt with.

Accordingly I can see no basis upon which the application should succeed, and I would refuse it.

THE PRESIDENT: As I indicated, Thomas J's judgment is the
judgment of the Court, and I indicate that I agree with it.
PINCUS JA: I agree 3

THE PRESIDENT: The order of the Court is, application dismissed.

-----

4