Court of Appeal (Qld)|2015-04-14|Before: Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes and Morrison, JJA, Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each, concurring as to the orders made
Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes and Morrison, JJA, Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each, concurring as to the orders made
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
– GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE OR
INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty, together with four
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE– GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLYEXCESSIVE ORINADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty, together with fourco-offenders, to trafficking in dangerousdrugs – where the applicant wassentenced to 10 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with the remainingthree yearsand seven months of a five year sentence he was then serving –where one of the applicant’s co-offenders successfullyappealed to theCourt of Appeal on the basis that the sentencing judge erred in calculating thegravity of the trafficking –where the applicant contends that in light ofthe error identified by the Court of Appeal, his sentence should be reduced–where the respondent concedes that the error in the sentencing processmeant that this Court should consider the sentencing discretionafresh but thatthe original sentence was not manifestly excessive – where this Court must
balance the totality principle with
the principle that sentences of co-offenders
must not be so disparate as to engender a justifiable sense of grievance on the
part
of an offender – where the applicant had a significant criminal
history including drug trafficking – where the applicant
committed the
present offences whilst on bail for a previous drug trafficking offence –
whether the sentence was manifestly
excessive
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Part 9A
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
[1984] HCA 46,
applied
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
[1988] HCA 70,
applied
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78
[2007] QCA
273, cited
R v Bost [2014] QCA
264, cited
R v Feakes [2009] QCA
376, cited
R v Galeano [2013] 2 Qd R 464
[2013] QCA
51, cited
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87
[2006] QCA
365, cited
R v Ryan [2014] QCA
78, cited
R v Westphal [2009] QCA
223, cited
Judgment (15 paragraphs)
[1]
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The appeal is allowed.
A sentence of nine years imprisonment is substituted for the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed below.
The applicant is eligible for parole on 24 May 2019.
The sentence imposed below is otherwise confirmed.
[2]
[21] HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Margaret McMurdo P and the orders she proposes.
[22] MORRISON JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of the President and agree with those reasons and the orders her Honour proposes.