R v Walker - [2019] QCA 199

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Walker [2019] QCA 199

PARTIES:

R
v
WALKER, Amanda May
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 326 of 2018
SC No 1037 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 November 2018 (Lyons SJA)

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Crow J

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where after a two week trial, the applicant was convicted of five drug offences including trafficking in a dangerous drug, possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of a mobile phone used in the commission of a trafficking offence – where the applicant was sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility arising after the mid-point of that term for trafficking, and convicted and not further punished with respect to the remaining charges – where the applicant committed serious offences, and continued to traffic after being found in possession of a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine, and having been given a notice to appear and released on bail – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Arnott (unreported, Holmes CJ, Indictment No 941 of 2018, 25 July 2018), distinguished
R v Baradel[2016] QCA 114, considered
R v Church [2015] QCA 24, distinguished
R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176; [2014] QCA 285, cited
R v Peat (unreported, Holmes CJ, Indictment No 1631 of 2017, 27 July 2018), distinguished
R v Saggers (2016) 264 A Crim R 27; [2016] QCA 344, distinguished

COUNSEL:

J R Cook for the applicant
D Balic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

A W Bale & Son Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: After a two week trial the applicant was found guilty by a jury of five drug offences. She abandoned her appeal against conviction and seeks leave to appeal against her sentence. On count 1, trafficking in a dangerous drug, the applicant was sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment. Parole eligibility will arise after the mid-point of that term. The applicant was convicted and not further punished on counts 2 – 5. Counts 2 – 4 charged possession of dangerous drugs, in the case of count 2 with the circumstance of aggravation that the quantity of the drug (methylamphetamine) exceeded 2 grams. Count 5 charged possession of a mobile phone used in the commission of the trafficking offence.
There is no challenge to the trial judge’s findings of fact made in the course of imposing sentence. Text messages and telephone calls adduced in evidence at the trial established that for about eight and a half months between 21 August 2015 and 11 May 2016 the applicant frequently bought from her supplier and she sold at street level both methylamphetamine and cannabis. She…

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 [2019] QCA 199
Case: [2019] QCA 199
Decision Date: 27 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walker involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant following a conviction for multiple drug-related offences. The applicant was found guilty of trafficking in a dangerous drug, possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of a mobile phone used in the commission of a trafficking offence. The trial was lengthy, lasting two weeks, and resulted in a conviction for the applicant. The sentencing court imposed a sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment for the trafficking offence, with parole eligibility after the mid-point of the sentence. For the remaining charges, the applicant was convicted but not further punished. The applicant sought to appeal on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court needed to consider the seriousness of the offences, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes, and the applicant’s conduct both during and after the trial. It was important to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation against the principles of proportionality and the individual circumstances of the applicant.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, noting the substantial quantity of methylamphetamine involved and the applicant's continued involvement in trafficking despite being released on bail. The court considered the principle that a sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect the community. However, the court also took into account the fact that the applicant had no prior convictions and had shown some cooperation with authorities during the trial. Ultimately, the court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The applicant's conduct and the nature of the offences warranted a significant penalty, and the sentence imposed was within the range of what could be considered appropriate.

The application for appeal was dismissed. The court confirmed that the sentence was appropriate and did not amount to a manifestly excessive punishment. The court's decision upheld the sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for effective deterrence and protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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 [2019] QCA 199
PARTIES:	R v WALKER, Amanda May (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 326 of 2018 SC No 1037 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 19 November 2018 (Lyons SJA)
DELIVERED ON:	27 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 September 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Crow J
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where after a two week trial, the applicant was convicted of five drug offences including trafficking in a dangerous drug, possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of a mobile phone used in the commission of a trafficking offence – where the applicant was sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility arising after the mid-point of that term for trafficking, and convicted and not further punished with respect to the remaining charges – where the applicant committed serious offences, and continued to traffic after being found in possession of a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine, and having been given a notice to appear and released on bail – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Arnott (unreported, Holmes CJ, Indictment No 941 of 2018, 25 July 2018), distinguished R v Baradel[2016] QCA 114, considered R v Church [2015] QCA 24, distinguished R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176; [2014] QCA 285, cited R v Peat (unreported, Holmes CJ, Indictment No 1631 of 2017, 27 July 2018), distinguished R v Saggers (2016) 264 A Crim R 27; [2016] QCA 344, distinguished
COUNSEL:	J R Cook for the applicant D Balic for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	A W Bale & Son Solicitors for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent