R v Trzcinski - [2000] QCA 403

[2000] QCA 403

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
WHITE J

CA No 191 of 2000

THE QUEEN

IAN JAMES TRZCINSKI Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 29/09/2000

JUDGMENT

THOMAS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed for possession of cannabis in excess of 500 grams. The sentence was two and a half years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after serving 12 months. 257 days of pre-sentence custody were taken into account.

The applicant was 43 years of age at the time of sentence. He has an extensive criminal history spanning some 27 years in two States. The offences are mainly drug-related and include a number of breaking and entering offences and a number of less serious offences. He has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment on about 10 occasions, the longest period being two and a half years cumulative on an activated suspended sentence.

The applicant in this matter acted as a courier for a cannabis trafficking enterprise. On 9 October he flew to Adelaide. Various bags also went in the luggage compartment on that trip under his ticket which was in the false name of Utteradge. The applicant, however, was not aware of their contents. One of them contained $89,000 in cash.

While in Adelaide he met the Brisbane principal of the enterprise, one Ellis. The next day the applicant flew back to Brisbane with two bags containing about almost
15 kilograms of cannabis. Again he was not aware of their contents but admits that he knew something "suss" was going on and subsequently an admission of his awareness that cannabis was involved was made to the police.

On arrival in Brisbane he was met by the co-accused Dyer. They collected and carried the bags to a vehicle. The applicant was driven home and Dyer remained in possession of the bags. They were later seized by police.

When first interviewed the applicant denied involvement. He later admitted he was involved in the transportation of cannabis and that he had realised during his stay in Adelaide that he was assisting in a criminal activity. He believed he was transporting items associated with unlawful drug activity. It was also said that he did not know exactly what drug or what quantities were involved.

At the hearing his counsel mentioned on his behalf that he suspected that luggage containing some amphetamine glassware would be coming back with him from Adelaide. As the learned trial Judge observed that excuse cuts both ways.

The appellant was not paid in cash but all his expenses including air travel, alcohol and food were paid for him. The offence is aggravated by the fact that he had been released only three weeks before from prison which related to the production of amphetamines. It was essential that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed and defence counsel did not submit otherwise.

The applicant presented the equivalent of an outline of argument as his grounds of appeal and he orally developed some of…

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 Trzcinski

Details

AGLC: R v Trzcinski [2000] QCA 403
Case: [2000] QCA 403
Decision Date: 29/09/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Trzcinski involved an applicant seeking leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for possession of cannabis exceeding 500 grams. The applicant, Ian James Trzcinski, was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after serving 12 months. The sentence took into account 257 days of pre-sentence custody. Trzcinski, aged 43 at the time, had an extensive criminal history, primarily drug-related, spanning 27 years across two states. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the sentence was appropriate given the applicant's role in a cannabis trafficking enterprise, his criminal history, and the need for an effective deterrent.

The legal issues before the Court included the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the applicant's role in the drug trafficking operation, his extensive criminal history, and his recent release from prison. The Court also considered the applicant's lack of full knowledge regarding the nature of the drugs he was transporting and the extent of his involvement in the criminal activity. The Court had to weigh these factors against the need for an effective deterrent sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was appropriate. Despite Trzcinski's claim of limited knowledge about the contents of the bags he transported, the Court found that he deliberately chose not to ask questions and therefore bore responsibility for his actions. His plea of guilty and extensive criminal history justified the sentence imposed. The Court also noted that the co-accused, Dyer, who had cooperated with the police, received a more lenient sentence, which was appropriate given his greater cooperation. Consequently, the Court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders