R v Wilson - [2016] QCA 98

[2016] QCA 98

COURT OF APPEAL

GOTTERSON JA
PHILIP McMURDO JA
DOUGLAS J

CA No 296 of 2015
SC No 640 of 2014
SC No 390 of 2015
SC No 951 of 2015
SC No 957 of 2015

THE QUEEN

WILSON, Jessica Lee Applicant

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 15 APRIL 2016

JUDGMENT

PHILIP McMURDO JA: On 2 December 2015, the applicant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for offences upon two indictments and for a number of summary offences. She had pleaded guilty to each charge. She received concurrent terms of imprisonment for the charges upon the indictments and no further punishment on the summary charges. The longest of the terms imposed was one of six years for an offence of trafficking in methylamphetamine, MDMA and cannabis, between 21 July 2013 and 15 January 2014. She was sentenced for a further offence of trafficking in methylamphetamine in the period from 3 January 2015 to 9 February 2015, for which she received a term of 20 months, with an order pursuant to subsection (2) of section 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act that she not be released until 80 per cent of that term had been served.

There were also two offences for the possession of drugs for which she received concurrent terms of one year. A period of 275 days from 2 March 2015 until 1 December 2015 was declared as pre-sentence custody. The parole eligibility date was fixed at 1 March 2018, effectively at the halfway mark of her six-year term. She applies for leave to appeal against that sentence upon the ground that it is manifestly excessive. The applicant was 27 years old when sentenced and 25 or 26 when the offences were committed. She had some criminal history, all of which could be attributed to her longstanding drug addiction, in particular an addiction to methylamphetamine, but none of which was of particular significance. She had not received a custodial sentence.

On 14 January 2014, she was found to be in possession of a crystalline substance which she then admitted was methylamphetamine and a powder which she then admitted was ecstasy. She admitted that the drugs were hers and that they were for personal use or for resale. Possession of these drugs were the offences for which she received the concurrent one year terms. The applicant’s telephone was then examined by police. It revealed almost 1,100 text messages relating to the supply of drugs. The first of these messages had been received by the applicant on 31 July 2013 and the period of trafficking was thereby defined. The messages revealed that the applicant bought drugs from two primary sources and that she had two people selling drugs for her on a regular basis. The sentencing judge described her trafficking as of a relatively low level but noted that she was supplying other dealers as well as users.

His Honour said that the frequency of her wholesale business had increased over the period. She was supplying drugs on credit…

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 [2016] QCA 98
Case: [2016] QCA 98
Decision Date: 15 APRIL 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wilson involved an appeal by the applicant, Jessica Lee Wilson, against her sentence which was imposed by the sentencing judge. The applicant had pleaded guilty to various offences, including drug trafficking, and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The longest term imposed was six years for trafficking in methylamphetamine, MDMA and cannabis, and an additional term of 20 months for trafficking in methylamphetamine, with a requirement to serve 80 per cent of that term before being eligible for release. The applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, with Gotterson JA, Philip McMurdo JA, and Douglas JA sitting as the panel.

The primary legal issue in this appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the starting point of the head sentence for the first trafficking count should have been three to four years, rather than five years, and that this would have resulted in a term of five years with a parole eligibility date after two and a-half years. The respondent argued that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the starting point of five years for the first trafficking count was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments of both parties and examined the relevant case law. The Court found that the sentencing judge's starting point of five years for the first trafficking count was open to him, as there were cases in which a term of five years was imposed for drug trafficking. The Court also noted that the second trafficking count warranted some further punishment, and it was legitimate for the sentencing judge to reason as he did by increasing the head sentence on the first trafficking count. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and refused the application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal's decision in R v Wilson demonstrates the importance of considering the totality of an offender's criminal conduct when imposing a sentence. The Court found that the sentencing judge's starting point of five years for the first trafficking count was appropriate, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court also noted that the second trafficking count warranted some further punishment, and that it was legitimate for the sentencing judge to increase the head sentence on the first trafficking count. This case serves as a reminder to sentencing judges of the need to carefully consider the totality of an offender's criminal conduct when imposing a sentence.

Orders