The King v Blackmore

[2025] QCA 137

[2025] QCA 137

COURT OF APPEAL

BOWSKILL CJ
BOND JA
BODDICE JA

CA No 218 of 2023
SC No 39 of 2023

THE KING

v

BLACKMORE, Terry Allen  Applicant

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 30 JULY 2025

JUDGMENT

BOWSKILL CJ:  The applicant was convicted on 3 August 2023, on his pleas of guilty, of one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs, as well as nine counts of unlawfully possessing various drugs.  On 16 October 2023, he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the trafficking, suspended after serving 15 months for an operational period of five years.  In respect of all of the other counts, he was convicted but not further punished (because those offences essentially formed part of the trafficking).

An application for leave to appeal against the sentence was filed on 14 November 2023.  The sole ground on which the applicant would appeal, if given leave, is that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The trafficking took place over a period of one year and nine months and involved a wide range of steroid drugs, including those listed in schedule 1 and some listed in schedule 2 of the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987.  The applicant’s trafficking operation was aptly described as professional, organised and sophisticated.  It initially involved the use of encrypted messaging apps, for about the first three months, after which the applicant created and administered a website, operated on the dark web, on which he advertised steroids and other illegal drugs for sale, and also arranged for other vendors of drugs to sell their drugs, for commission paid to the applicant.  The intensity of sale activity was substantial, with some 2,093 orders placed on the website, and at least $565,000 of “total transaction money” paid.  Although it was difficult to identify how much the applicant made from his illegal drug business, it was accepted by him below that it would have been “a little higher than a $100,000”.

The applicant entered a late plea of guilty, about a day before the trial was to commence, in the face of “powerful evidence” of his guilt.  As against that, the learned sentencing judge placed considerable weight on the fact that it was virtually inevitable the applicant would be deported to the UK following the custodial portion of any sentence, and his difficult family circumstances, as a result of which his incarceration would be more burdensome.  It was this factor in particular which persuaded the sentencing judge to accept the applicant’s submission to “go as low as” a five year sentence for the trafficking, and to suspend the sentence at about the quarter mark, namely, 15 months.

The applicant has not complied with the requirement to file an outline of submissions in relation to his application for leave to appeal.

The application was listed for hearing on 13 February 2025.  The Registrar wrote to the applicant on 6 February 2025, asking when he intended to file his outline of submissions.

The applicant emailed the Registry on 13 February 2025, requesting that his application be delisted “due to additional information and evidence required due to previous lawyer error”.  He said he would contact the Court to relist the matter “once further information is present”.  The Court did, on that date, adjourn the application to a date to be fixed.

In March this year, the Registry took steps to try to relist the application.  The applicant’s response, on 3 April 2025, was that he wanted the application to remain delisted for the meantime “until attached and outstanding matters have been dealt with”.

On 4 April 2025, the respondent requested that the matter be listed for a review hearing.  On 16 April, after a number of emails from the Registry, the applicant said that he did not want a date for a review to be scheduled, because he was “awaiting the result of another case which is included” and could not schedule a date until then.  That was not acceptable to the Court, and the matter was listed for review on 28 April 2025 before Justice Mullins.

On 26 April 2025, the applicant sent an email to the Registry saying:

“I have asked a number of times for this to be delisted.  This was requested under the grounds of misrepresentation from my lawyer.  The same crime had lower level charges that were meant to have been handed up to the Supreme Court but were not. After my time was served I was surprised but the remaining 5 year old charges from the same crime.  Those are currently in the courts, and until they are dealt with, the extent of lawyer misrepresentation is not clear.

Again I will ask, for this to be delisted until all charges from the same crime are dealt with.”

The review was not delisted and took place at 9.30 am on 28 April 2025.  The applicant did not appear.  Justice Mullins ordered that the sentence application be listed for hearing on 30 July 2025.  Her Honour also directed the Registrar to advise the applicant of the listing, and that if he wishes to change the listing date, he must request a review of the matter.

The Registry emailed the applicant on 28 April 2025, as directed, as well as informing the applicant that his outline of submissions was due to be filed on or before 2 July 2025.  This email informed the applicant that “any request to change the hearing date of the appeal must be made to the Court at a review hearing and cannot be changed administratively”.  The applicant did not file any submissions.

On 3 July 2025, the Registry emailed the applicant, in relation to his now overdue outline.  The applicant responded on 8 July to say that:

“This has been delayed due to another outstanding and connected court case where charges were not handed up due to lawyer error.  I have been awaiting an outcome on that before I can address everything with this.

At this stage, not knowing the outcome of the outstanding court matter, I cannot provide the full details for this as my request was filed under lawyer misrepresentation and his negligence to have all matters addressed at Supreme Court handled at sentencing falls under the same claim of misrepresentation.

I would require this to be delayed until all matters are dealt with.  If this can be delisted, I can make contact once all matters are dealt with.”

The Registry responded on the same day to remind the applicant that he was told on 28 April 2025 that his application was listed for hearing on 30 July, and that if he wished to change the hearing date, he was required to request, and appear at, a review hearing.  He was also told that if he did not appear at the hearing today, orders may be made in his absence dismissing his appeal for want of prosecution.

The applicant responded, still on 8 July, in similar terms, indicating that he could not file an outline, and if the matter could not be delayed until all matters are dealt with, “it’s pointless, as it will be missing vital information”.  He also said that he would rather, “pull it completely and not waste my time without full details of the extent of misrepresentation”.

The following day, 9 July 2025, the Registry responded to advise the applicant that if he wished to abandon his proceeding, he would need to sign a Form 30 - Notice of Abandonment (which was provided to him as an attachment to the email).  He was also told that he could raise his concerns with the Court on 30 July 2025 if he wished to continue with his appeal, and that a formal order of the Court would be required in order to further adjourn the proceeding.  Once again, he was told that if he did not appear at the hearing, orders may be made in his absence dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.  There has been no further correspondence with the Court since that date, no Notice of Abandonment has been filed, and no outline of submissions has been filed by the applicant.

When the matter was called in Court today, there was no appearance by the applicant.  The applicant has taken no steps to advance his application in this Court.  His emailed communications are inadequate to explain why this proceeding should be permitted to languish any further.  In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the application for leave to appeal against sentence be struck out.

BOND JA:  I agree with the order proposed by the Chief Justice and with her reasons for so doing.

BODDICE JA:  I also agree with the orders and reasons.

BOWSKILL CJ:  The order will be that the application for leave to appeal against sentence is struck out.