• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The principal sentence was three years’ imprisonment on count 1, supplying a dangerous drug with a circumstance of aggravation. On counts 2 and 3, BFC was convicted but not further punished. The sentencing judge set parole release for 18 March 2026, after she had served six months in custody ([2]–[3]). The Court of Appeal refused leave ([18]).

The offending occurred during a prison visit to BFC’s partner, Mr MQ. CCTV captured her taking a package from inside her bra and handing it to him; corrective services immediately seized it. The package included MDMA and cocaine, both Schedule 1 drugs, and 180 buprenorphine strips, a Schedule 2 drug. Count 3 arose from messages on BFC’s phone concerning delivery of the package ([5]).

BFC told police she had received the package about two weeks earlier, after Mr MQ had told her by phone to expect it. The package had been inside a coffee tin or box, wrapped in cling film, and she placed a balloon over it before the prison visit. She said she did it because she needed money, was “in a bad place”, and knew it was wrong ([6]). The agreed basis for sentence was that she knew the package for count 1 contained dangerous drugs but might not have known their precise kind or quantity. For count 2, she knew it contained buprenorphine strips but did not know the number ([7]).

The sentence appeal raised two grounds: that the sentencing judge had not treated domestic violence as a mitigating factor under s 9(10B)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), and that the sentence was manifestly excessive ([4]). The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds.

Why the court decided this way

On the domestic-violence ground, the court focused on what the sentencing judge had actually accepted and taken into account. BFC’s relationship with Mr MQ involved domestic violence. Cross domestic violence orders were in place, and the judgment records five convictions of Mr MQ for contraventions involving physical violence. Defence counsel had submitted that, although the circumstances did not amount to a defence of duress, BFC was concerned about possible consequences if she did not comply with his request ([8]).

The sentencing judge accepted that BFC was a victim of domestic violence and that it partially contributed to her offending. He identified it among matters in her favour and considered the possibility that refusing Mr MQ’s request could have consequences involving further domestic violence. He also described it as “just one factor to take into account” ([9]).

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was not required to do more. It referred to R v BEM [2024] QCA 175 at [19], which it described as confirming that the presence of domestic violence does not change the task of sentencing by instinctive synthesis, as explained in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [37] ([13]). The court’s point was not that domestic violence was irrelevant. Rather, the judge had recognised it, treated it as a matter in BFC’s favour and included it in the overall assessment.

The court also noted that the judge’s treatment of the mitigating features affected the time BFC was to spend in custody. Brown JA said the judge reduced that period to six months, rather than setting it at the “usual third” of the sentence imposed ([13]). The judgment presents this as part of the sentencing judge’s consideration of the mitigating circumstances.

On manifest excessiveness, the Court of Appeal compared the case with R v Davis [2015] QCA 139, R v Reardon [2006] QCA 225 and R v Cole [1998] QCA 205. The sentencing judge had already considered those authorities and observed that the amounts in BFC’s case were significantly greater ([11], [14]). In Cole, 1.3 grams of cannabis had been supplied to a prisoner; in Reardon, the supply was .033 grams of heroin. Davis concerned attempts by a prisoner to obtain 10 and 14 buprenorphine strips. The court also noted distinctions in the offenders’ circumstances and, for Davis, the effect of the statutory provision requiring the sentence to be served cumulatively ([14]).

Those cases did not determine the sentence in BFC’s case or mark the outer boundaries of sentencing discretion. The court said their outcomes did not support a conclusion that this sentence was manifestly excessive ([14]). The current offending involved two Schedule 1 drugs and a Schedule 2 drug in significantly greater quantities. The court treated BFC’s lack of knowledge about precise types or quantities as potentially relevant to culpability, but expressly said it was not a mitigating factor ([15]).

Finally, the court stressed the objective seriousness of supplying drugs into prison. It said the circumstance of aggravation recognised the seriousness of taking drugs into a prison and that such conduct undermined the administration of justice ([16]). The sentencing judge had taken account of the guilty pleas, admissions, antecedents, disadvantaged upbringing, insignificant criminal history and domestic violence, while also considering the profit motive and general deterrence ([9]–[10]). The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence did not demonstrate a misapplication of principle and was not unreasonable or plainly unjust ([17]).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not purport to announce a new sentencing framework. Its account of the governing approach is that sentencing continues to involve “instinctive synthesis”, with domestic violence considered as one factor within that overall task. Brown JA relied on BEM and Markarian for that proposition ([13]).

The decision’s application is specific: where the sentencing judge expressly accepts that domestic violence partly contributed to offending and includes it among the matters in the offender’s favour, the Court of Appeal considered that no further separate treatment was required on the facts before it ([9], [13]). The judgment does not say that a sentencing judge may ignore domestic violence, nor does it set out a formula for assessing its weight.

For manifest excessiveness, the decision reiterates the limited role of comparable sentences. Davis, Reardon and Cole were relevant points of comparison, but were neither determinative nor the outer limits of sentencing discretion ([14]). The court assessed the differences in drug type and quantity, the prison context, and the individual circumstances described in those cases.

The text supplied does not establish a broader change in the law before or after this decision. In particular, it does not set out the full text of s 9(10B), a general test for the weight to be given to domestic violence, or a new sentencing tariff for drugs supplied into prison. The grounded account is therefore one of applying the existing principles identified in the judgment to this sentence.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [13], Brown JA wrote: “His Honour accepted that the applicant was the victim of domestic violence and indeed accepted that it partially contributed to her offending.” In plain English, the sentencing judge accepted both the existence of domestic violence and its connection to the offending. The Court of Appeal treated that as an actual consideration in the sentencing process, not merely as background information.

Also at [13], Brown JA said the sentencing judge “was not required to do more.” In context, this responds to the complaint that domestic violence had not been treated as a mitigating factor in accordance with s 9(10B). The court considered that recognising the contribution and including it among matters in the applicant’s favour was enough for the task on these facts.

At [14], the court stated that the earlier sentences “are not determinative of this sentence nor mark the outer bounds of a sentencing judge’s discretion.” In plain English, a sentence in another case is a comparison point, not a fixed ceiling or an automatic guide to the result in a different case. The court emphasised the substantial difference in the quantity and range of drugs involved here.

At [15], the court distinguished between culpability and mitigation: BFC’s possible lack of knowledge of the precise type or quantity “is not a mitigating factor”, although it was “of some relevance to her criminal culpability”. This means the court regarded the limited knowledge as relevant to assessing her responsibility for the offending, but did not classify it as a mitigating factor in the sentencing analysis.

At [17], Brown JA concluded that the sentence did not disclose a “misapplication of principle” or amount to an “unreasonable or plainly unjust” sentence. That was the court’s stated basis for rejecting the manifest-excessiveness ground. It was not a finding that the sentence was lenient; the court said it was “not lenient” but did not meet the stated basis for appellate interference.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to sentencing appeals involving a claim that domestic violence contributed to offending and was not properly taken into account. The material features here were that the sentencing judge accepted BFC was a victim, accepted a partial contribution to the offending, identified it as a matter in her favour and considered the possible consequences of not complying with her partner’s request ([8]–[9], [13]).

The decision may also be relevant where an offender argues that a sentence for supplying drugs into prison is excessive by comparison with earlier cases. The court’s analysis suggests that comparisons require attention to the particular quantities and types of drugs, the prison setting, and the circumstances of the earlier cases. It expressly cautioned that the comparator cases did not set outer limits ([14]).

The judgment is not a general rule for every offence involving domestic violence, every prison drug supply, or every case where the offender has limited knowledge of a package’s contents. Its reasoning rests on the sentencing judge’s findings and the specific comparison made between the drugs and circumstances in the cited cases. The text does not decide how s 9(10B) applies where the sentencing judge rejects the claimed domestic violence, finds no contribution to offending, or fails to mention the issue.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment itself cannot show how later courts have treated R v BFC, as it contains no later judicial consideration of its own reasoning. No subsequent cases or legal sources were provided with the judgment, so later treatment cannot be assessed from the available material.

The authorities that BFC itself discusses are BEM, Markarian, Davis, Reardon and Cole. The court relied on BEM and Markarian when explaining instinctive synthesis and considered the three prison drug-supply cases in its manifest-excessiveness analysis ([13]–[14]). Those are relationships between BFC and earlier authorities, not evidence of how later courts have treated BFC.

Still-open questions

The judgment does not explain how much weight domestic violence should receive in different circumstances. It decides that the sentencing judge’s treatment was sufficient here, where the judge accepted a partial contribution and expressly included it among matters in BFC’s favour ([9], [13]). It does not resolve what treatment would be sufficient where the connection between the violence and the offending is more direct, more contested, or supported by different evidence.

Nor does the judgment set a general sentencing range for supplying drugs into a prison. It notes that the drugs and quantities here were significantly greater than in the cases cited, but states that the comparator sentences were not determinative or outer limits ([14]–[16]). It does not provide a tariff or a quantitative method for comparing different drug types and amounts.

The judgment also does not elaborate on how an offender’s knowledge of a package’s contents should affect sentence beyond the distinction it made here: limited knowledge could be relevant to culpability, but was not treated as mitigation ([15]). The reasons do not discuss the evidentiary or sentencing treatment of different degrees of knowledge in other cases.

Finally, because the judgment is a leave application decided on the stated sentencing record, it does not set out the full statutory framework or resolve every issue that could arise under s 9(10B). Those questions would require consideration of the relevant statutory text and any additional authorities, neither of which is reproduced in full in the material analysed here.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.