Legal Research
Cases
Stanley v The Queen

Stanley v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 54 20 March 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0011

STANLEY (A PSEUDONYM)	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH and FERGUSON JJA and BEALE AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 October 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 March 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 54 (First Revision 20 March 2017)
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Stanley] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hannan, 11 December 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application by offender for leave to appeal against sentence – Applicant received a total effective sentence of nine years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of seven years – Whether total effective sentence, individual sentences and minimum term manifestly excessive – Total effective sentence included a sentence of eight years imprisonment for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence – Current sentencing practices – Comparable cases – Whether current sentencing practices for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence are inadequate – Not appropriate in the circumstances to decide that issue – Application refused – Rv Kilic [2016] HCA 48 – Duncan v The Queen [2010] VSCA 92 – Dagher v The Queen [2011] VSCA 119 – Ibrahim v The Queen [2013] VSCA 227 – R v Nguyen, Ngyuen & Pham [2007] VSCA 165 – R v Nguyen [2008] VSCA 141 – R v Nguyen, Dang, Ly & Nguyen [2008] VSCA 235 – Kumar v The Queen [2013] VSCA 191.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Applicant

Mr J Dickinson QC with

Mr R Edney

Doogue O’Brien George

For the Respondent

Ms F Dalziel

Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA:

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons of Beale AJA and for the reasons he gives would refuse leave to appeal.

FERGUSON JA:

I agree with Beale AJA.

BEALE AJA:

Introduction

On 11 December 2015, following pleas of guilty, the applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence – large commercial quantity [s 71 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981]	Life imprisonment [s 71 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981]	8 years	Base
2	Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence [s 71AC Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981]	15 years’ imprisonment [s 71AC Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981]	18 months	8 months
3	Possession of a drug of dependence [s 73 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981]	5 years’ imprisonment [s 73 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981]	8 months	3 months
4	Possession of an Unregistered Category E Longarm [s 6A(3) Firearms Act 1996]	7 years’ imprisonment [s 6A(3) Firearms Act 1996]	12 months	4 months
5	Possession of an Unregistered Category E Longarm [s 6A(3) Firearms Act 1996]	7 years’ imprisonment [s 6A(3) Firearms Act 1996]	12 months	3 months
Summary Charge 8	Deal with property suspected…

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 Stanley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stanley v The Queen [2017] VSCA 54
Case: [2017] VSCA 54
Decision Date: 20 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stanley v The Queen, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The applicant had been found guilty of multiple drug trafficking offences and was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of nine years and six months, with a non-parole period of seven years. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the total effective sentence, individual sentences, and the minimum term were manifestly excessive. Specifically, the applicant challenged the eight-year sentence for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, contending that current sentencing practices for such offences were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles established in previous cases concerning the adequacy of sentences for drug trafficking offences. It examined the proportionality of the sentence in light of the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The Court noted that while the total effective sentence was severe, it fell within the range typically imposed for such offences. The Court emphasised that it was not appropriate to determine the adequacy of current sentencing practices for drug trafficking in this particular appeal. Instead, the Court focused on whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive.

After careful consideration of the arguments and relevant case law, the Court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the total effective sentence, individual sentences, or the minimum term were manifestly excessive. The Court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and was consistent with current sentencing practices. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The Court acknowledged the severity of the sentence but upheld its proportionality in the context of the crimes committed.

Orders