R v Verrall

Case [2015] QCA 72

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Verrall [2015] QCA 72

PARTIES:

R
v
VERRALL, Steven Peter
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 119 of 2013
SC No 1500 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2014

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Morrison JA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Refuse the application to adduce new evidence.

2.   Refuse the application for leave to appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – TO ADMIT NEW EVIDENCE – where the applicant sought to rely upon four categories of new evidence – whether leave should be given to adduce new evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pled guilty to one count of unlawfully trafficking in cocaine for a 12 month period and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, with no discretion as to parole eligibility – where the applicant pled guilty to 14 counts of importing a marketable quantity of cocaine and one count of money-laundering and was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for each count with a five year non-parole period – where all sentences imposed were concurrent – where the applicant conducted an elaborate business importing cocaine and selling it domestically with a motive for profit – where the applicant submitted that the sentences imposed were akin to double punishment – where the applicant submitted that the sentences imposed did not adequately reflect the principle of remorse and contrition – where the applicant submitted that the primary judge should have expressly referred to the principle of ensuring consistency across Australia in sentencing Commonwealth offences – where the applicant submitted that the primary judge did not adequately consider the applicant’s rehabilitation, status as a model prisoner, psychological issues or drug dependency – whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE/OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant submitted that the primary judge erred in receiving a submission on sentencing range from the Crown – whether the primary judge contravened statements made in Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 4C
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A(a)(ii)

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372; [2014] HCA 2, cited
Lau v The Queen [2011] VSCA 324, cited
Matthews v The Queen [2014] VSCA 291, cited
R v Campbell (2008) 73 NSWLR 272; [2008] NSWCCA 214, cited
R v Ly & Kyprianou[2008] QCA 149, cited
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited

Continue reading R v Verrall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Verrall [2015] QCA 72
Case
[2015] QCA 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Verrall, the applicant appealed against his sentence, which was imposed following his guilty pleas to drug trafficking, importing, and money laundering offences. The Supreme Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the applicant's sentences were manifestly excessive, and if the trial judge had erred in his sentencing considerations. The applicant sought to introduce new evidence and argued that the sentences were excessive, did not reflect remorse or contrition, and failed to consider the principle of consistency in sentencing Commonwealth offences. Additionally, the applicant claimed the trial judge did not adequately consider factors such as his rehabilitation, status as a model prisoner, psychological issues, and drug dependency. The court also needed to decide if the trial judge had acted on the wrong principle by accepting a submission on sentencing range from the Crown, potentially contravening the principles set out in Barbaro v The Queen.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate, and if the trial judge had acted on the wrong principle or otherwise erred in his sentencing considerations. The court had to weigh the arguments regarding the harshness of the sentences, the principles of consistency in sentencing, the absence of adequate consideration of the applicant’s personal circumstances, and the propriety of the trial judge’s acceptance of a submission on sentencing range from the Crown. The court examined the nature and extent of the applicant's criminal conduct, his criminal history, the principles of sentencing, and the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offences and to ensure deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court found that the sentences imposed, while severe, were not manifestly excessive given the nature and extent of the applicant’s criminal conduct and the need for deterrence. The court held that the trial judge had adequately considered the principles of sentencing and that the sentences were not excessive or inadequate. The court also found no error in the trial judge’s acceptance of a submission on sentencing range from the Crown, as it did not contravene the principles set out in Barbaro v The Queen. Consequently, the court refused the application to adduce new evidence and the application for leave to appeal.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application to adduce new evidence and to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed. The court maintained that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances and that there were no grounds for interference with the trial judge's sentencing decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Refuse the application to adduce new evidence.

2. Refuse the application for leave to appeal.

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.