The King v Alt, Julien Michael - [2022] QCA 182

[2022] QCA 182

COURT OF APPEAL

MULLINS P
JACKSON J
CROW J

CA No 80 of 2022
DC No 6 of 2022

THE KING

ALT, Julien Michael Applicant

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2022

JUDGMENT

CROW J: On the 28th of March 2022, the applicant pled guilty to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of possession of a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams and one count of possessing property obtained by supplying a dangerous drug. On the sentencing submissions, the Crown tendered several exhibits including a statement of facts. The Crown sought a head sentence in the order of four years’ imprisonment and submitted that “supervision may be an important part of his sentence structure…”.[1]

[1]Appeal Book (AB) at page 16, line 26.

The applicant made timely pleas of guilty in the face of a strong case against him. Before the sentencing judge, defence counsel for the applicant conceded that the proper range was a head sentence of three to four years. Defence counsel referred to R v Broad & Prior [2010] QCA 53 and R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230. Defence counsel submitted to the sentencing judge that her Honour could structure an appropriate sentence which had regard to all the features of the sentence that her Honour’s required to attend to. That would mean that he does not undertake immediate imprisonment. The primary judge adjourned the sentence to consider the materials and submissions and delivered her sentence on the 29th of March 2022, sentencing the applicant on count 1, trafficking count, to three and a-half years’ imprisonment, to be suspended after serving 12 months’ imprisonment with an operational period of three and a-half years. In respect of counts 2 and 3, the applicant was convicted but not further punished.

The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant does not take issue with the head sentence of three and a-half years’ imprisonment but rather submits the failure by the primary judge to accept trial counsel’s submission, that the applicant ought not to have been required to serve time in prison, was manifestly excessive and, that in the proper exercise of the sentencing judge’s discretion, that applicant ought to have been subject to immediate parole or suspension.

The applicant complaints that the primary judge did not expressly address the submission made on behalf of the applicant to the primary judge that his prospects of rehabilitation warranted consideration of immediate release on parole or a suspended sentence. It is correct to submit that the primary judge did not expressly refer to that submission, however, the primary judge did give sound reasons for rejecting that submission where her Honour reflected that deterrence was clearly an important consideration in relation to those who conduct criminal enterprises solely for commercial gains.[2]

[2]AB at page 46, lines 31 to 40.

The applicant submits that the primary judge did not undertake a real consideration of the applicant’s submissions, however, the primary judge did…

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 The King v Alt, Julien Michael

Details

AGLC: The King v Alt, Julien Michael [2022] QCA 182
Case: [2022] QCA 182
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The King v Alt, Julien Michael, the applicant pled guilty to charges of drug trafficking, possession of a dangerous drug exceeding 500 grams, and possessing property obtained by supplying a dangerous drug. The primary judge sentenced the applicant to three and a half years' imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, with an operational period of three and a half years. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive, specifically challenging the requirement to serve time in prison. The applicant argued that his prospects of rehabilitation warranted immediate parole or suspension. The Court of Appeal reviewed the primary judge's sentencing remarks, which reflected on various factors, including the commercial nature of the trafficking, the importance of deterrence, the applicant's limited criminal history, and his family circumstances. The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had given sound reasons for rejecting the applicant's submission and had taken into account all relevant features of the sentence.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had exercised her discretion properly in sentencing the applicant. The Court considered whether the primary judge had adequately addressed the applicant's submissions and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court held that the primary judge had given appropriate consideration to the submissions and factors relevant to the sentence, and the sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The Court found that the primary judge had expressly referred to the applicant's submissions and considered the relevant features impacting the proper sentence, ultimately imposing a sentence that was proportionate to the offending and just in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the sentence.

The final order of the Court was to refuse the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The Court found that the primary judge had properly exercised her discretion in sentencing the applicant, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision and dismissed the applicant's appeal.

Orders