R v Trimble - [2004] QCA 464

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Trimble [2004] QCA 464

PARTIES:

R
v
TRIMBLE, Graham Leslie
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 335 of 2004
SC No 217 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mackenzie 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 – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted of one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin, four counts of supplying that drug and two further counts of supplying that drug – where sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment cumulative on another term of imprisonment being served by the applicant – where plea of guilty – where applicant co-operated with police – where extensive criminal record – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive

R v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393, cited
R v Irving [2001] QCA 472; CA No 199 of 2001, 2 November 2001, cited
R v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172; CA No 337 of 2000, 11 May 2001, cited

COUNSEL:

M Green for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree the application for leave to appeal should be refused for the reasons given by Williams JA.

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on 25 August 2004 to one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin, four counts of supplying the dangerous drug heroin and two further counts of supplying the dangerous drug heroin. He was sentenced on 27 August 2004 to eight and a half years imprisonment on the trafficking charge; convictions were recorded but no separate sentences imposed with respect to the supply counts. The sentence of eight and a half years imprisonment was made cumulative upon another term of imprisonment being served by the applicant. It was accepted on the hearing in this court that the cumulative sentence would expire in October 2015. The principal submission by counsel for the applicant was that the learned sentencing judge made insufficient allowance for the plea of guilty and the applicant’s co-operation with the administration of justice and that, particularly bearing in mind that the sentence had to be made cumulative, eight and a half years imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

The material discloses that police commenced surveillance of the applicant on 14 May 2003. The following summary was put to the learned sentencing judge:

“They followed his vehicle to various locations on the Sunshine Coast and they noticed when he stopped he was approached by various people who went to the prisoner’s driver’s side where he was sitting at the window and…

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 Trimble

Details

AGLC: R v Trimble [2004] QCA 464
Case: [2004] QCA 464
Decision Date: 3 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the applicant, Trimble, who had been convicted of several drug-related offences, including trafficking and supplying heroin. The applicant pleaded guilty to these charges and cooperated with the police, but he had an extensive criminal record. The court sentenced him to eight and a half years imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with another term of imprisonment he was already serving. Trimble subsequently sought leave to appeal against the sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and whether there was any ground to support the appeal against the sentence.

The court examined the principles and considerations relevant to the sentencing of drug offenders, including the need to deter and protect the community, and the need to consider the personal circumstances of the offender. The court also assessed the severity of the offences, the applicant's cooperation with the police, and his criminal history. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed and that there was no basis for finding that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant factors and exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the law.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that there were no grounds to support an appeal against the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the offences and the need to deter drug-related crime, while also taking into account the personal circumstances of the offender. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed and that there was no basis for finding that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Trimble [2004] QCA 464
PARTIES:	R v TRIMBLE, Graham Leslie (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 335 of 2004 SC No 217 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 November 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mackenzie 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 – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted of one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin, four counts of supplying that drug and two further counts of supplying that drug – where sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment cumulative on another term of imprisonment being served by the applicant – where plea of guilty – where applicant co-operated with police – where extensive criminal record – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive R v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393, cited R v Irving [2001] QCA 472; CA No 199 of 2001, 2 November 2001, cited R v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172; CA No 337 of 2000, 11 May 2001, cited
COUNSEL:	M Green for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent