R v Tindel - [1997] QCA 293

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 293

McPHERSON JA
SHEPHERDSON J

WHITE J

CA No 265 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

DARRELL LESLIE TINDEL	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 07/08/97
JUDGMENT
070897 T5/JB M/T COA175/97

McPHERSON JA: The applicant was convicted in the Circuit Court at Bundaberg and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years, with a parole recommendation after four years, for carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in cannabis sativa.

In effect the offence arose out of growing and producing cannabis on a large scale. No fewer than five different properties were used for planting cannabis. One of them was the property of the applicant's co-offender Grima. The other four were family properties of other persons in the general area in which this activity was taking place. The applicant and his co- offender also enlisted assistance in the enterprise from the sons of the applicant and the co-offender Grima.

The operation was conducted on a large scale. The growing of the cannabis extended over some three and a half years viewing the matter as an enterprise or project. The turnover from the business is said to have been approximately $2 million, which was to be shared equally between the applicant and Grima. Money in an amount of some $1.3 million was transferred to an offshore bank with headquarters in Malta and, despite the later efforts of the applicant to retrieve it, it is believed now not to be recoverable.

The applicant, in the course of these activities, used explicit or implicit threats of physical violence, and in one instance applied financial pressure by means of a debt owing to him, to induce owners of properties to join in the scheme.

In the case of the first property, the owner of it owed money to

2 JUDGMENT

070897 T5/JB M/T COA175/97

the applicant and that indebtedness was used to force him to join in the operation, as well as a threat that unpleasant consequences would follow if that person did not participate in the project.

The second property belonged to the co-offender Grima, on which a crop worth about half a million dollars was grown.

In the case of the third property, the applicant arranged with the owner to plant a crop of corn, but instead grew cannabis. Again, financial inducements and threats of physical violence were brought to bear on the owner in order to make him comply with the applicant's plans.

In the case of the fourth property the plant was grown without the knowledge of the land owner. When the owner discovered it, he was warned he would be shot. A little later the applicant and three others assaulted him, and left him lying half- conscious. Further threats were then made against him and members of his family.

The owner of the fifth property was brought into the venture by being provided with funds to grow crops, or with the promise of a share of the money that would result.

The applicant is 48 years of age and, it…

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 Tindel

Details

AGLC: R v Tindel [1997] QCA 293
Case: [1997] QCA 293
Decision Date: 7/08/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tindel before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved the applicant, Darrell Leslie Tindel, appealing against his sentence of 12 years imprisonment for trafficking in cannabis sativa. Tindel's operation involved cultivating cannabis on a large scale over three and a half years across multiple properties, with a turnover of approximately $2 million shared equally with his co-offender, Grima. The operation included the use of threats and financial pressure to coerce property owners into participating. The case raised issues around the severity of the sentence, considering the scale of the operation and the methods employed by Tindel.

The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or outside the range of a proper sentencing discretion. It considered the nature of the offences, the extent of the operation, and the use of threats and violence to involve others. The court also weighed Tindel's cooperation with the police and his early plea of guilty against the aggravating factors of the case. The court found that, while Tindel's cooperation and early plea warranted a discount on the sentence, the severity of his crimes and the coercive tactics used to expand his operation justified the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Tindel's application for leave to appeal against his sentence, finding it to be within the appropriate range of sentencing discretion. The judges emphasised the need to deter such large-scale and coercive criminal activities, and the significant impact on those coerced into participating. The court concluded that the sentence, with a recommendation for parole after four years, was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders