R v Wilson - [2021] QCA 115

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wilson [2021] QCA 115

PARTIES:

R
v
WILSON, Chloe-June Christine
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 174 of 2020
SC No 5 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 30 July 2020 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2021

JUDGES:

Fraser and Bond JJA and Wilson J

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence is denied.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on pleas of guilty of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) and two counts of possessing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) in excess of two grams – where the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in relation to the trafficking offence with a parole eligibility date after 15 months – where the applicant was 28 years old at the time of the offending – where the applicant had struggled with domestic violence, mental and physical health issues, and drug addiction – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Amendment Regulation (No 2) 2001 (Qld), s 4, s 5
Serious and Organised Crime Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (Qld), s 164

R v Blumke[2015] QCA 264, distinguished
R v Crook[2017] QCA 277, cited
R v Cuddy (1988) 37 A Crim R 226, distinguished
R v Dowel; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2013] QCA 8, cited
R v Jobsz[2013] QCA 5, distinguished
R v McLean[2021] QCA 70, distinguished
R v Morrison[2020] QCA 187, cited
R v Piccles[2020] QCA 84, distinguished
R v Scott[2006] QCA 76, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
B J Jackson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with Wilson J’s reasons and the orders proposed by her Honour.
BOND JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Wilson J and with the orders proposed by her Honour.
WILSON J: The applicant, Chloe-June Christine Wilson, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 30 July 2020. The applicant was sentenced in relation to three offences under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld):
(a)Count one: trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine between 20 December 2018 and 7 February 2019;
(b)Count two: possessing methylamphetamine in excess of two grams on 21 December 2018;
(c)Count three: possessing methylamphetamine in excess of two grams on 22 December 2018.
The applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in relation to count one, with a parole eligibility date fixed at 20 August 2021 and 70 days declared as pre-sentence custody. The applicant was convicted and not…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2021] QCA 115
Case: [2021] QCA 115
Decision Date: 28 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Wilson, appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria, having been convicted on pleas of guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) and possessing dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine) in excess of two grams. The trial judge sentenced Wilson to four years' imprisonment for the trafficking offence, with parole eligibility after 15 months. Wilson argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering his age at the time of the offending (28 years), his struggles with domestic violence, mental and physical health issues, and drug addiction.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. It examined the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and assessed the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and extent of the offending, Wilson's background, and the impact on the community. The court found that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed, taking into account the seriousness of the trafficking offence and the need for deterrence.

The court dismissed Wilson's appeal against sentence, concluding that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court denied Wilson's application for leave to adduce further evidence, finding that it did not provide a sufficient basis to interfere with the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence stood as imposed by the trial judge.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence is denied.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Wilson [2021] QCA 115
PARTIES:	R v WILSON, Chloe-June Christine (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 174 of 2020 SC No 5 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 30 July 2020 (Crow J)
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 May 2021
JUDGES:	Fraser and Bond JJA and Wilson J
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence is denied. 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on pleas of guilty of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) and two counts of possessing a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine) in excess of two grams – where the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in relation to the trafficking offence with a parole eligibility date after 15 months – where the applicant was 28 years old at the time of the offending – where the applicant had struggled with domestic violence, mental and physical health issues, and drug addiction – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Drugs Misuse Amendment Regulation (No 2) 2001 (Qld), s 4, s 5 Serious and Organised Crime Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (Qld), s 164 R v Blumke[2015] QCA 264, distinguished R v Crook[2017] QCA 277, cited R v Cuddy (1988) 37 A Crim R 226, distinguished R v Dowel; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2013] QCA 8, cited R v Jobsz[2013] QCA 5, distinguished R v McLean[2021] QCA 70, distinguished R v Morrison[2020] QCA 187, cited R v Piccles[2020] QCA 84, distinguished R v Scott[2006] QCA 76, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf B J Jackson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent