R v Watt

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 430

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA

de JERSEY J

CA No 344 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

PHILLIP MICHAEL WATT

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 29/10/97
291097 T21/BP M/T COA245/97
McPHERSON JA: I will ask Mr Justice de Jersey to give the
first judgment.

de JERSEY J: Over a period of approximately six months, the applicant carried on the business of trafficking in heroin. He pleaded guilty to that and to associated charges of supplying and possession of heroin and possession and production of cannabis and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole consideration recommended after two years and four months.

He was 40 years old at the time. He made 12 sales to an undercover police officer, involving 2.79 grams of pure heroin for $5400. His object however was to satisfy his own addiction by using some of the drugs supplied by his own supplier.

The sentencing Judge found that the undercover agent was not his only customer, although it was not possible to form a view about the extent of his sales to others. He has many convictions for past drug offences including supplying heroin dating back to when he was 24 years old.

Before the sentencing Judge, the Crown Prosecutor proposed a range of seven to nine years although he eventually suggested a sentence of seven to eight years with a recommendation reflecting a plea of guilty. Defence counsel indicated that he took no issue with the range proposed by the Prosecutor. In the event he received, as I have said, seven years with a recommendation after two years and four months.

291097 T21/BP M/T COA245/97
That appears to be consistent with the cases, especially Tho Le,
Court of Appeal number 291 of 1995, where the Court indicated a
range of seven to nine years as applicable not only to a person
involved for commercial reasons, but to Tho Le himself in that
case who Mr Justice Thomas described as "not gaining any very
extensive profit in the activity" his "main purpose being to
feed his own habit".

In these circumstances where the sentencing Judge has imposed a term from the bottom of that suggested range and added what can only be regarded as a quite generous recommendation with relation to parole, it is not appropriate, in my view, for this Court to interfere.

The recommendation with relation to parole was for consideration after two years and four months by contrast with three and a half years which would be the ordinary situation and as the Judge indicated, he took that course largely in recognition of the plea of guilty and the saving of public resources which that entailed.

I would not interfere and I would refuse the application.

McPHERSON JA: Yes, I agree.

PINCUS JA: I agree and I would only add, with respect to the applicant's cooperation, that while it is commendable that he pleaded guilty, it would have been even more commendable and would no doubt have produced a very substantial reduction in his sentence if he had explained to the police from whom he was 291097 T21/BP M/T COA245/97

purchasing the drugs.

McPHERSON JA: The order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Watt before the Queensland Court of Appeal involves Phillip Michael Watt, who was convicted of trafficking in heroin, supplying and possessing heroin, and possessing and producing cannabis. Watt conducted his criminal activities over a period of approximately six months, during which he made 12 sales to an undercover police officer, involving a total of 2.79 grams of pure heroin for $5400. Watt's primary motivation for these sales was to satisfy his own heroin addiction by obtaining drugs from his supplier. The sentencing judge found that Watt had additional customers, although the extent of his sales to others could not be determined. Watt had a history of drug-related offences dating back to when he was 24 years old. The Crown Prosecutor proposed a sentencing range of seven to nine years, with defence counsel indicating no disagreement with the range. The sentencing judge ultimately sentenced Watt to seven years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole consideration after two years and four months.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge's decision to impose a term at the lower end of the proposed range and provide a generous recommendation for parole consideration was appropriate. The Court of Appeal considered that the sentencing judge's decision was consistent with previous cases, particularly Tho Le, where a similar range was suggested for individuals involved in drug trafficking for both commercial and personal reasons. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was within the suggested range and that the recommendation for parole consideration was generous, particularly in light of Watt's guilty plea and the public resources saved as a result.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Pincus JA, McPherson JA, and de Jersey J, unanimously decided not to interfere with the sentencing decision. The judges noted that the sentence was at the lower end of the proposed range and that the parole recommendation was more favourable than the norm, largely due to Watt's guilty plea. The Court emphasised that while Watt's cooperation in pleading guilty was commendable, it would have been more beneficial if he had disclosed information about his drug suppliers to the police. The Court ultimately dismissed Watt's application for leave to appeal against his sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established