R v WR - [2007] QCA 16

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WR [2007] QCA 16

PARTIES:

R
v
WR
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 325 of 2006
SC No 651 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

1 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 February 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking, production, supplying and possessing a Sch 1 drug - where head sentence of seven and a half years reduced by mitigating factors - where applicant cooperated with authorities under s13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) - where applicant entered early guilty plea - where applicant rehabilitated - where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after two years for an operational period of five years - whether sentence manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 13A

R v Barton [2006] QCA 367, considered
R v Gladkowski (2000) 115 A Crim R 446; [2000] QCA 352, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins, with D James, for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Lynch & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA: On 3 November 2006, the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, one count of production of methylamphetamine, four counts of supplying methylamphetamine and one count of possession of methylamphetamine. The applicant also pleaded guilty to two summary offences of possession of property, acquired for, and used in connection with, the commission of an offence. The learned sentencing Judge sentenced the applicant to five years imprisonment, suspended after two years for an operational period of five years in respect of the trafficking offence, and four years imprisonment suspended after 12 months in respect of the production offence, for an operational period of five years. The sentences were to be served concurrently. No further penalty was imposed in respect of the other offences.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against this sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

As to the circumstances of the offence, the applicant was apprehended by police officers after they were informed by a pharmacist that the applicant had purchased large quantities of drugs containing pseudoephedrine. The applicant admitted to the police that he had engaged in trafficking methylamphetamine over a period of 13 and a half months between March 2002 and April 2003. The applicant told police that he sold approximately 10 ounces, that is 280 grams, of methylamphetamine during this period. The applicant operated at…

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 WR

Details

AGLC: R v WR [2007] QCA 16
Case: [2007] QCA 16
Decision Date: 1 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v WR involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, production, supplying, and possessing a Schedule 1 drug. The appellant had entered an early guilty plea and cooperated with authorities under section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The appellant had also shown signs of rehabilitation. The trial judge imposed a head sentence of seven and a half years, reduced by various mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of five years imprisonment suspended after two years for an operational period of five years. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the appellant's early guilty plea, cooperation with authorities, and rehabilitation in assessing the sentence. The court also examined relevant case law, including R v Barton and R v Gladkowski, to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and sought leave to appeal.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant's early guilty plea, cooperation with authorities, and signs of rehabilitation were all mitigating factors that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. The court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offences committed.

No orders were made in favour of the appellant. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. 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.

CITATION:	R v WR [2007] QCA 16
PARTIES:	R v WR (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 325 of 2006 SC No 651 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	1 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 February 2007
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - where applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking, production, supplying and possessing a Sch 1 drug - where head sentence of seven and a half years reduced by mitigating factors - where applicant cooperated with authorities under s13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) - where applicant entered early guilty plea - where applicant rehabilitated - where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after two years for an operational period of five years - whether sentence manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 13A R v Barton [2006] QCA 367, considered R v Gladkowski (2000) 115 A Crim R 446; [2000] QCA 352, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins, with D James, for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Lynch & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent