Roll v QPS - [2015] QDC 296

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Roll v QPS [2015] QDC 296

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER LEE ROLL

(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

55/15

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

1 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2015

JUDGE:

Bradley DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed.The orders made by the sentencing magistrate are set aside and the appellant is convicted and fined $500 which fine is referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Register and a conviction is recorded for each offence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawfully producing a dangerous drug and one charge of having in his possession things that he had used in connection with the smoking of a dangerous drug – where the defendant was sentenced on each charge to two months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of three years – where the magistrate did not state whether the defendant’s plea of guilty was taken into account – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Act1986 (Qld) s 13.

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9, s 13, s 48.

COUNSEL:

S L Kissick for the appellant.

R Reid for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

McMillan Kelly & Thomas for the appellant.

Office of the Director of Public prosecutions for the respondent.

Background

On 23 July 2015 in the Magistrates Court at Ipswich, the appellant pleaded guilty to two charges under the Drugs Misuse Act1986. Firstly, that between 1 May 2015 and 2 July 2015 he unlawfully produced a dangerous drug, namely cannabis; and secondly, that on 2 July 2015 he unlawfully had in his possession things, namely a set of digital scales and an electric grinder, that he had used in connection with the smoking of a dangerous drug.

On each charge the appellant was convicted and sentenced to two months imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of three years.

Those sentences are appealed against on the ground that they are manifestly excessive.

Facts

The facts placed before the magistrate were that police executed a search warrant at the appellant’s Thorn Street, Ipswich address at about 7pm on 2 July 2015. The appellant was asked if there was anything he wished to declare and he indicated a small potted plant sitting on the kitchen bench. The plant had been placed underneath a light source and had a stake positioned in the pot to guide the plant in its growth. The appellant stated that the cannabis belonged to him and that he had grown it from a seed that he had found approximately two months earlier. He told police that he planted the seed in a pot and left it out on the veranda to grow but brought it inside and placed it underneath an artificial light source as it was growing poorly. He said that he had…

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 Roll v QPS

Details

AGLC: Roll v QPS [2015] QDC 296
Case: [2015] QDC 296
Decision Date: 1 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Roll v QPS, the appellant appealed against the sentences imposed by a sentencing magistrate. The appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawfully producing a dangerous drug and another charge of having in his possession things that he had used in connection with the smoking of a dangerous drug. Each charge was met with a sentence of two months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of three years. The primary contention was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive, particularly given the lack of explicit consideration of the appellant's guilty plea. The court examined the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, and the principles governing sentencing. The court also considered the guidelines provided by the Sentencing Act and relevant case law to assess the appropriateness of the sentence. The court determined that the failure to explicitly consider the guilty plea was a significant oversight and that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentences imposed by the magistrate were set aside. The court convicted the appellant on both charges and imposed a fine of $500 for each offence. This fine is to be referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Register, and a conviction will be recorded for each offence. This decision underscores the importance of considering a guilty plea in sentencing and the need for sentences to be proportionate to the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed.The orders made by the sentencing magistrate are set aside and the appellant is convicted and fined $500 which fine is referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Register and a conviction is recorded for each offence.

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:	Roll v QPS [2015] QDC 296
PARTIES:	CHRISTOPHER LEE ROLL (appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	55/15
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	1 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	6 November 2015
JUDGE:	Bradley DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal allowed.The orders made by the sentencing magistrate are set aside and the appellant is convicted and fined $500 which fine is referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Register and a conviction is recorded for each offence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawfully producing a dangerous drug and one charge of having in his possession things that he had used in connection with the smoking of a dangerous drug – where the defendant was sentenced on each charge to two months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of three years – where the magistrate did not state whether the defendant’s plea of guilty was taken into account – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Drugs Misuse Act1986 (Qld) s 13. Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9, s 13, s 48.
COUNSEL:	S L Kissick for the appellant. R Reid for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	McMillan Kelly & Thomas for the appellant. Office of the Director of Public prosecutions for the respondent.