Rosenlis v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 217

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0308
CHAD ALEXANDER ROSENLIS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	13 June 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDER:	13 June 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 217
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Unreported, County Court of Victoria at Melbourne, Judge Punshon, Date of Sentence 18 November 2011

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence – Evidence of rehabilitation – Sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 months’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Ascot Solicitors Pty Ltd (Deer Park)
For the Crown	Ms D Karamicov	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Ms D Ziukelis)

BUCHANAN JA:

The appellant was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and one charge of trafficking in cocaine.

A plea was conducted and the appellant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of three years and four months on the charge of trafficking in methylamphetamine and for a term of four months on the charge of trafficking in cocaine.

Two months of the sentence on the charge of trafficking in cocaine were cumulated on the charge of trafficking in methylamphetamine creating a total effective sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment. A minimum term of 21 months’ imprisonment was fixed before the appellant was to be eligible for parole.

A single judge of this Court granted the appellant leave to appeal against sentence on the following grounds:

1.The sentence was manifestly excessive as to Charge 1 and as to the total effective sentence and in any event, as to the non‑parole period.
2.The learned sentencing judge erred in giving too much weight to general deterrence in the unusual circumstances of this case.

On 10 December 2009, the appellant and two co‑offenders were arrested at a car wash in Bulleen. They were in a car belonging to one of the offenders. A snap lock bag contained 450.2 grams of methylamphetamine was found in the appellant’s underpants. The drugs were to have been delivered to an undercover police operative, who had arranged for the purchase of the drug from the appellant and his co‑offenders.

Police later searched the family home of the appellant and found a football bag in which there were six snap lock bags containing 996.7 grams of methylamphetamine and $71,700 in cash.

It was agreed between the Crown and the defence that the methylamphetamine in the football bag had been delivered to the appellant’s house by another person and that the appellant was holding it for that person.

When he was interviewed by the police, the appellant told them that he had been selling methylamphetamine for about one year and that he sold it in small quantities to various people. He…

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 Rosenlis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rosenlis v The Queen [2012] VSCA 217
Case: [2012] VSCA 217
Decision Date: 13 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Rosenlis, appealed against his conviction and sentence for trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Rosenlis argued that his sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment, with a minimum term of 21 months’ imprisonment, was manifestly excessive given his limited criminal history and evidence of rehabilitation. The appeal was grounded on the assertion that the sentence did not reflect the principles of proportionality and individualised justice.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider whether the sentence was disproportionate to the offence and failed to account for Rosenlis's personal circumstances, including his efforts towards rehabilitation. The appeal raised questions about the balance between deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in sentencing, particularly for drug-related offences.

The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged Rosenlis’s limited criminal history and his efforts towards rehabilitation but emphasised the gravity of the offence, which involved a substantial quantity of a dangerous drug. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the crime and did not fail to reflect the principles of individualised justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as there was no point of principle that warranted the intervention of the High Court.

No further orders were made by the court. The sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment, with a minimum term of 21 months’ imprisonment, remained upheld.

Orders