R v Twaddle - [2002] QCA 188

[2002] QCA 188

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
WILLIAMS JA
JONES J

CA No 66 of 2002

THE QUEEN

DAVID GARY TWADDLE Applicant

TOWNSVILLE

..DATE 27/05/2002

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 6th of February 2002 to one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine, between 1 January 1997 and 6 October 2000, and one count of possession of a mobile telephone and a set of electronic scales used in connection with trafficking. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment with a recommendation that he be considered for parole after serving three years and three months. Eight days presentence custody was declared to be time served under the sentence.

The applicant submits the sentence was manifestly excessive, in that the learned sentencing Judge failed to place sufficient weight on matters of mitigation, in particular, the timely plea of guilty.

With the concurrence of defence counsel at sentence, the Prosecutor relied on the applicant's conduct over a two month period from about 27 August 2000 to 26 October 2000, as representative of the applicant's conduct during the entire period of the trafficking charge, which extended over a three year and 10 month period.

The representative conduct relied on by the Prosecutor was as follows: On 27 August 2000, an undercover female police agent travelled to Ingham and met Frank Patane, who provided the police officer with a mobile telephone number. The undercover police officer keyed that number into her mobile phone and handed the phone to Patane, who had a conversation. Patane and the undercover agent waited in her motor vehicle until the applicant drove by in a Ford Falcon and parked it some 30 metres away. Patane walked to the Falcon and got into the front passenger seat, the Falcon then drove off, returning a short time later. Patane got out of the Falcon and walked to the undercover agent's car and directed her to another address at Ingham, where she again saw the Falcon driven by the applicant in the driveway of the showgrounds.

Patane left the undercover agent's car, went to the Falcon driven by the applicant and returned shortly afterwards with a clipseal plastic bag containing white powder. She handed Patane $2,100. Patane then walked towards the applicant's vehicle. The police agent gave Patane $300 and dropped him off at his address. The white powder was later calculated to weigh 6.299 grams with a pure weight of 1.014 grams of pure methylamphetamine, 16.1 per cent pure.

On the 1st of September 2000, the police agent again met with Patane who made a number of phone calls, and they later met with the applicant who produced a clipseal plastic bag containing white powder, in return for $2,100. This powder had a gross weight of 6.348 grams and a calculated weight of .818 grams of pure methylamphetamine.

On 8 September 2000, the undercover police agent again purchased methylamphetamine from the applicant for $2,100. Its total weight was 6.279 grams, with a calculated weight of 1.065 grams…

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 Twaddle

Details

AGLC: R v Twaddle [2002] QCA 188
Case: [2002] QCA 188
Decision Date: 27/05/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Twaddle, the applicant, David Gary Twaddle, pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine and possession of a mobile phone and electronic scales used in connection with trafficking. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole eligibility after serving three years and three months, with eight days of presentence custody to be considered as time served. The applicant appealed the sentence, claiming it was manifestly excessive and did not adequately consider mitigating factors, such as his timely plea of guilty.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and failed to appropriately weigh the mitigating factors. The Court had to determine if the sentence was within the appropriate range and if it adequately reflected the criminality of the conduct and allowed for mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of eight years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after serving three years and three months was within the appropriate range and sufficiently recognised mitigating factors. The Court noted that the applicant had engaged in a prolonged period of drug trafficking with a commercial purpose and had previous convictions for similar offences. The Court considered that the sentence adequately reflected the criminality of the conduct and included an appropriate allowance for the timely plea of guilty. The Court also noted that the applicant's involvement in drug trafficking had involved the more damaging drug methylamphetamine.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of the President, McMurdo P, Williams JA, and Jones J, unanimously agreed that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The final order was that the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders