R v. Turner - [2007] QCA 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Turner [2007] QCA 70

PARTIES:

R
v
TURNER, Angus Robert

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 331 of 2006

SC No 799 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

9 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2007

JUDGE:

McMurdo P, Jerrard 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 refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to various drug offences – where applicant sentenced to nine months imprisonment with parole release date from the date of sentence – where applicant breached conditions of parole – where applicant contends that a fully suspended sentence would have been more appropriate – whether sentence manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

R Pointing for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Mackenzie will deliver his reasons first.

MACKENZIE J: The applicant pleaded guilty to offences of producing methylamphetamine, possession of methylamphetamine, possession of cannabis and possession of things used in the production of methylamphetamine.

He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, with a parole release date fixed as the date of sentence. The offences came to police attention in an unusual way. The applicant had been renting a room from another man who lived in the house.

On the day prior to the police becoming involved, a fire broke out in the kitchen. The landlord, who extinguished the fire, formed the opinion that the applicant was engaging in cooking amphetamines; however, he merely warned the applicant not to do it again, rather than reporting the incident to the police.

The next morning the applicant attacked his landlord, who then complained to the police about the assault and the drug activities. When the premises were searched, the police found small quantities of methylamphetamine and cannabis. In the garage, they found reagents, glassware and a glass bottle, typical of equipment used to produce methylamphetamine. Further inquiries revealed that the applicant and a female associate had been recorded by a hardware outlet's surveillance system when they were buying chemicals of the kind found.

The female pleaded guilty only to producing methylamphetamine, based on her involvement in procuring the chemicals and that plea was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment against her. She was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, fully suspended for an operational period of 12 months.

The learned sentencing Judge sentenced the applicant to nine months' imprisonment, with immediate release on parole. He expressed the view that actual time in custody was not warranted for the criminality of the four…

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. Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Turner [2007] QCA 70
Case: [2007] QCA 70
Decision Date: 9 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v. Turner involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to various drug offences, appealing against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The applicant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, with the parole release date set from the date of the sentence. However, the applicant breached the conditions of parole. The applicant contended that a fully suspended sentence would have been more appropriate and argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether a fully suspended sentence would have been more appropriate. The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's culpability, and the principles of sentencing.

In its reasoning, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences warranted a custodial sentence. The court also noted that the parole conditions were breached, which demonstrated a lack of rehabilitation and a need for deterrence. The court concluded that a fully suspended sentence would not have adequately addressed the offending behaviour and would not have served the interests of justice. Therefore, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Turner [2007] QCA 70
PARTIES:	R v TURNER, Angus Robert (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 331 of 2006 SC No 799 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	9 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2007
JUDGE:	McMurdo P, Jerrard 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 refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to various drug offences – where applicant sentenced to nine months imprisonment with parole release date from the date of sentence – where applicant breached conditions of parole – where applicant contends that a fully suspended sentence would have been more appropriate – whether sentence manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf R Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent