R v Turner - [2006] QCA 133

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Turner [2006] QCA 133

PARTIES:

R
v
TURNER, Virginia Dawn
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 340 of 2005
SC No 55 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2006

JUDGES:

Williams JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ
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 - where the applicant pleaded guilty to four drug related charges involving the trafficking of both cannabis and morphine - where the applicant had a relevant criminal history - where the sentencing judge noted that the drug dealings “were at a low level” but were also occurring on a “regular basis” - whether the learned sentencing judge gave proper consideration to the psychological, physical and emotional difficulties suffered
by the applicant - whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435; CA No 310 of 2004, 16 November 2004, distinguished

R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379; CA No 192 of 2005, 14 October 2005, distinguished

COUNSEL:

H A Walters for the applicant
R Pointing for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Arthur Browne & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on 23 November 2005 in the Supreme Court at Townsville to four drug-related charges. Particulars of the charges are as follows:

i. between 1 September 1997 and 9 February 2005 carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in cannabis;

ii. between 1 January 1999 and 9 February 2005 carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in morphine;

iii. on 8 February 2005 had possession of a sum of money, namely $1,710, obtained from trafficking in dangerous drugs; and

iv. on 8 February 2005 had possession of a set of scales used in connection with the crime of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

The following sentences were imposed:

Count 1 - five years imprisonment suspended after two years for an operational period of five years;

Count 2 - three years imprisonment suspended after nine months for an operational period of three years;

Count 3 - two years imprisonment suspended after nine months for an operational period of two years; and

Count 4 - two years imprisonment suspended after nine months for an operational period of two years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences on the ground they were "manifestly excessive in all the circumstances".

It appears that counts 1 and 2 were made separate charges because of the different periods involved in the trafficking. But for that, there could have been a single charge, namely trafficking in cannabis and morphine.…

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 [2006] QCA 133
Case: [2006] QCA 133
Decision Date: 28 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against sentence by the applicant, Turner, who had pleaded guilty to four drug-related charges involving the trafficking of both cannabis and morphine. Turner's criminal history was relevant to the case, and the sentencing judge acknowledged that while the drug dealings were at a low level, they were also occurring on a regular basis. Turner's appeal focused on whether the learned sentencing judge had given proper consideration to the psychological, physical, and emotional difficulties he had suffered, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The court needed to determine whether Turner's appeal against sentence should be allowed. This involved examining whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered Turner's personal circumstances and the impact of his drug-related activities. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offences and the applicant's criminal history.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed given proper consideration to Turner's personal circumstances and had appropriately weighed the various factors in determining the sentence. The court was satisfied that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court further noted that Turner's appeal against sentence was not well-founded, and therefore, it refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

In conclusion, the court held that Turner's appeal against sentence was not successful. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the personal circumstances of the applicant and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

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 [2006] QCA 133
PARTIES:	R v TURNER, Virginia Dawn (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 340 of 2005 SC No 55 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 April 2006
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ 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 - where the applicant pleaded guilty to four drug related charges involving the trafficking of both cannabis and morphine - where the applicant had a relevant criminal history - where the sentencing judge noted that the drug dealings “were at a low level” but were also occurring on a “regular basis” - whether the learned sentencing judge gave proper consideration to the psychological, physical and emotional difficulties suffered by the applicant - whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances R v Oldfield [2004] QCA 435; CA No 310 of 2004, 16 November 2004, distinguished R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379; CA No 192 of 2005, 14 October 2005, distinguished
COUNSEL:	H A Walters for the applicant R Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Arthur Browne & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent