R v Whyte

Case [2003] QCA 56


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Whyte [2003] QCA 56

PARTIES:

R
v
WHYTE, Samantha Joy
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 429 of 2002
SC No 481 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:


20 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of trafficking in cannabis and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, suspended after serving one year for an operational period of 5 years – where applicant also convicted of receiving property obtained from trafficking possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a dangerous drug, permitting use of a place to be used for the commission of a crime and possessing things to be used for the commission of a crime – whether manifestly excessive

R v Haygarth [1995] QCA 403; CA No 220 of 1995, 28 July 1995, considered
R v McFadden [1998] QCA 288; CA No 132 of 1994, 12 August 1994

COUNSEL:

K M McGuinness for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT:  Justice Philippides will give her reasons first.

PHILIPPIDES J:  This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

On 15 November 2002, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in cannabis, in respect of which he received a sentence of four years' imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, with an operational period of five years.

She was also convicted on her own plea, to one count of receiving property obtained from the trafficking and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, one count of possession of cannabis, in respect of which a sentence of six months' imprisonment was imposed, one count of permitting the use of a place for the commission of a crime, in respect of which a sentence of 12 months was imposed and one count of possession of things used for the commission of a crime, to which she was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

The applicant was about 20 years at the time the offences were committed.  The circumstances concerning the offences are as follows.  As a result of information received on 25 March 2002, the police kept the residence of the applicant and her husband under observation and the following day, stopped and searched an individual who had attended at the residence.

They found cannabis on that person and subsequently, they stopped another individual who had been to the premises and found additional items that caused them to obtain a search warrant, which they executed on the applicant's residence on 30 March 2002.

Continue reading R v Whyte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Whyte [2003] QCA 56
Case
[2003] QCA 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Whyte involved the applicant, Whyte, who was convicted on multiple drug-related charges. He was found guilty of trafficking in cannabis, receiving property obtained from trafficking possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a dangerous drug, permitting use of a place to be used for the commission of a crime, and possessing things to be used for the commission of a crime. For the trafficking charge, Whyte was sentenced to four years imprisonment, suspended after serving one year, with an operational period of five years. The applicant challenged the severity of his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Whyte was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing relevant to drug offences and related crimes. The court also assessed the impact of the sentence on the community and the objectives of deterrence and rehabilitation.

In its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's role in the criminal activities, and the need for the sentence to reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. After careful deliberation, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences and was commensurate with the principles of justice and deterrence. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.