R v Watkins - [2016] QCA 60

[2016] QCA 60

COURT OF APPEAL

MORRISON JA
BODDICE J
BURNS J

CA No 258 of 2015
SC No 41 of 2015
SC No 68 of 2015

THE QUEEN

WATKINS, Daniel Patrick Applicant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 15 MARCH 2016

JUDGMENT

BURNS J: On 25 September 2015, the applicant, Daniel Patrick Watkins, pleaded guilty to 41 separate offences in the Supreme Court at Townsville, the most serious of which was possession of over six grams of the Schedule 1 drug, methylamphetamine. He was sentenced to an effective head term of three years’ imprisonment, with 10 July 2016 fixed as the date for his release on parole. He contends that his sentence was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances, and seeks leave to appeal on that ground.

The sentences

The indictment to which the applicant pleaded guilty contained three counts. Count 1 was possession of methylamphetamine in a quantity exceeding two grams. Count 2 was possession of cannabis. Count 3 was possession of a category R weapon within the meaning of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), namely, a taser. Each of those offences was committed on 8 January 2014.

In addition, the applicant was dealt with for 38 summary offences committed over a 17 month period between 8 January 2014 and 18 May 2015. Ten of those offences related to the possession of dangerous drugs or drug accoutrements, five for contravening the terms of a domestic violence order, five for breaching the conditions of his bail, two for possession in a public place of, respectively, a trident spear and a machete and one for the unauthorised possession of ammunition. As well, there were numerous driving offences, including driving under the influence of a drug, unlicensed driving and two charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

On Count 1, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, on Count 2, to imprisonment for two months, and on Count 3, to imprisonment for five months. With respect to the summary offences, the most significant sentences were 12-month terms of imprisonment which were imposed for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle offences, the unlicensed driving offence and two of the domestic violence order contraventions. Lesser terms of imprisonment were imposed with respect to a number of the other summary offences and, as to the balance, the applicant was convicted and not further punished. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for periods ranging from six months to two years and the operation of the domestic violence order was extended to 1 July 2017.

All terms of imprisonment were ordered to be served concurrently, with 56 days of pre-sentence custody declared to be time already served under them. It was further ordered that the applicant be released on parole on 10 July 2016.

The circumstances of the offending

The indictable offences came to light when police intercepted a motor vehicle that the applicant was driving. On searching the vehicle, three clip-seal plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance…

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 Watkins

Details

AGLC: R v Watkins [2016] QCA 60
Case: [2016] QCA 60
Decision Date: 15 MARCH 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Watkins, the applicant, Daniel Patrick Watkins, applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed by the Queensland Court of Appeal. Watkins had pleaded guilty to a total of 42 offences, including possession of a significant quantity of methylamphetamine, possession of cannabis, possession of a taser, and various summary offences. He was sentenced to an effective head term of three years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 months, and a release date on parole set for 10 July 2016.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Watkins argued that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider his medical conditions, did not properly account for the time he had already spent in pre-sentence custody, and that the non-parole period set made the sentence excessively harsh. The Court found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered Watkins' medical conditions, which were well documented and presented during the sentencing hearing. The Court also found that the sentencing judge had appropriately accounted for the time Watkins had already spent in custody, both by backdating the commencement of the non-parole period and declaring 56 days of that time as pre-sentence custody. Finally, the Court held that the non-parole period was appropriately set given Watkins' extensive criminal history, the seriousness of his offending, and the significant additional offending that occurred while on bail.

The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and denied Watkins leave to appeal. The Court held that it would only interfere with the sentence if there had been an error in principle or if the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust, neither of which was demonstrated in this case. The Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence, finding that it was appropriate given the circumstances.

Orders