R v Walker - [2022] QCA 54

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Walker [2022] QCA 54

PARTIES:

R
v
WALKER, Simon Daniel
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 104 of 2021
SC No 19 of 2020
SC No 27 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 20 April 2021 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

14 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 March 2022

JUDGES:

Fraser and Mullins JJA and Boddice J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug and other drug and other offences while on a suspended sentence for the aggravated possession of methylamphetamine – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for the trafficking and the balance of the suspended sentence was activated and ordered to be served concurrently – where there was a contested sentence – where the sentencing was delayed by the applicant’s obtaining a report from a document examiner that made no difference to the outcome of the sentencing – whether the sentencing judge erred by refusing to treat the applicant’s guilty plea as early

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug and other drug and other offences while on a suspended sentence – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and the balance of the suspended sentence was activated and ordered to be served concurrently – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered
R v Nunn [2019] QCA 100, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Jackson for the applicant
M A Green for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins JA and the order proposed by her Honour.
MULLINS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on 20 April 2021 to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug between 8 November 2018 and 31 January 2019 (count 1), two counts of the aggravated possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine (counts 2 and 7), two counts of possessing a thing used in connection with trafficking in a dangerous drug (counts 3 and 8), two counts of possessing dangerous drugs (counts 4 and 9), one count of possess shortened firearm (count 5) and one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation (count 6). On the same occasion, he was also dealt with for committing an offence punishable by imprisonment during the operational period of five years of an effective sentence of four years’ imprisonment that had been imposed by North J in the Supreme Court at Mackay on 22 November 2017.
It was a contested sentence hearing,…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2022] QCA 54
Case: [2022] QCA 54
Decision Date: 14 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in R v Walker involved the applicant, who had previously been on a suspended sentence for aggravated possession of methylamphetamine, subsequently pleading guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug, as well as other drug and related offences. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for these new offences. The applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for the trafficking offence, with the remaining balance of the suspended sentence being activated and ordered to be served concurrently. The sentencing was contested, particularly in relation to the refusal by the sentencing judge to treat the applicant's guilty plea as early. The applicant also argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing judge erred in not treating the applicant's guilty plea as early, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered these issues in light of the applicant's previous criminal history and the nature of the current offences. The court was required to assess the appropriateness of the sentence in relation to the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

In examining the first issue, the court determined that there was no error in the sentencing judge's refusal to treat the applicant's guilty plea as early. The court found that the delay caused by the applicant in obtaining a document examiner's report did not affect the outcome of the sentencing. Regarding the second issue, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the offences. The court found that the sentence was proportionate and served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal, affirming the sentence imposed. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances and that there were no grounds for interference. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the facts of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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 Walker [2022] QCA 54
PARTIES:	R v WALKER, Simon Daniel (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 104 of 2021 SC No 19 of 2020 SC No 27 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 20 April 2021 (Crow J)
DELIVERED ON:	14 April 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 March 2022
JUDGES:	Fraser and Mullins JJA and Boddice J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug and other drug and other offences while on a suspended sentence for the aggravated possession of methylamphetamine – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for the trafficking and the balance of the suspended sentence was activated and ordered to be served concurrently – where there was a contested sentence – where the sentencing was delayed by the applicant’s obtaining a report from a document examiner that made no difference to the outcome of the sentencing – whether the sentencing judge erred by refusing to treat the applicant’s guilty plea as early CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug and other drug and other offences while on a suspended sentence – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and the balance of the suspended sentence was activated and ordered to be served concurrently – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered R v Nunn [2019] QCA 100, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Jackson for the applicant M A Green for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent