R v Witherspoon - [2003] QCA 58

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Witherspoon [2003] QCA 58

PARTIES:

R
v
WITHERSPOON,Graham
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 366 of 2002
SC No 132 of 2002
SC No 459 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

19 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2003

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AN INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where the offences involved aggravated possession and supply of amphetamine, and possession of other dangerous drugs and property used on connection with drug offences – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents

MACKENZIE J: The applicant pleaded guilty to a large number of drug offences, the most serious of which was trafficking in amphetamines. The other indictable offences consisted of two charges of supplying and two charges of aggravated possession of amphetamine-type drugs, eight of possession of dangerous drugs, consisting of heroin, cocaine, lysergide, THC, morphine and MDMA, and five counts of possession of property derived from or used in connection with drug offences.

There were also a number of summary offences, including possession of dangerous drugs, possession of restricted drugs, supplying a dangerous drug, four counts of possession of items such as scales and spoons used in connection with drugs, two of possession of drug-related money and possession of a weapon, a telescopic baton. He pleaded guilty to all of those offences as well.

Conviction for the offences just mentioned placed him in breach of a two year suspended sentence order for stealing as a servant and fraud.

The period of trafficking extended over about 11 months. The applicant came to the notice of police on several occasions during a covert operation and, although his premises and vehicle were searched on more than one occasion and property seized, he was not deterred, at least until very late, from continuing his activities.

The smorgasbord of drugs found was mainly in small quantities, but there were 9.7 grams of methylamphetamine and 2.2 grams of heroin. The total amount of cash found in the applicant's possession during the various searches of his premises during the operation was over $75,000. He admitted selling drugs but said that it was basically to a group of friends, although that account of events was doubted because of the amount of money involved.

The applicant was sentenced to seven years and nine months imprisonment with a recommendation for post prison community-based release after three years.…

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 Witherspoon

Details

AGLC: R v Witherspoon [2003] QCA 58
Case: [2003] QCA 58
Decision Date: 19 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Witherspoon involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent following his conviction for various drug-related offences. The respondent was found guilty of aggravated possession and supply of amphetamine, possession of other dangerous drugs, and possession of property used in connection with drug offences. The Supreme Court of the relevant state was asked to review the sentence imposed on the respondent, which the latter considered to be manifestly excessive. The respondent sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that it was disproportionate to the offences committed.

The legal issues before the court centred on the principles governing the imposition of sentences for drug-related offences, particularly aggravated possession and supply of dangerous drugs. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the respondent's appeal should be allowed. In considering these issues, the court needed to balance the severity of the offences with the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. It found that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed and was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the seriousness of drug-related offences and the importance of maintaining public safety by imposing firm penalties. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the sentence was appropriate and did not warrant an appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no further appeal was permitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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 Witherspoon [2003] QCA 58
PARTIES:	R v WITHERSPOON,Graham (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 366 of 2002 SC No 132 of 2002 SC No 459 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	19 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Mackenzie and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AN INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where the offences involved aggravated possession and supply of amphetamine, and possession of other dangerous drugs and property used on connection with drug offences – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents