Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-06-29|Before: Thomas JA, Muir and Atkinson JJSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Thomas JA, Muir and Atkinson JJSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES –
TRAFFICKING – PRODUCING OR CULTIVATING – the applicant
was convicted
of trafficking in methylamphetamine and producing methylamphetamine whilst on
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES –TRAFFICKING – PRODUCING OR CULTIVATING – the applicantwas convictedof trafficking in methylamphetamine and producing methylamphetamine whilst onparole JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CUMULATIVESENTENCES – where applicant’s sentence was made cumulative–s156 A Penalties and Sentences Act CRIMINAL LAW – APPEALAND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVINGMISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICHMISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS –FRESH EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where evidence ofapplicant’spast co-operation with authorities was available but notpresented at trial as it contained material which was both favourable andunfavourable favourable to the applicant – whether such evidence should bereceived on appeal – where such evidence onthe whole did not place theapplicant in a more favourable position – R v Maniadisdistinguished – further evidence not receivedCRIMINAL LAW
– APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE
– PARITY – CO-OFFENDERS –
GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where a
co-offender was trafficking in a first schedule drug as well as the
methylamphetamine –
where this fact together with the applicant’s
plea of guilty and co-operation with authorities should have resulted in a
higher
level of differentiation between the applicant’s sentence and the
of 2000, 12 September 2000, considered R v Maniadis [1996] QCA 242
[1997] 1
Qd R 593, distinguishedR v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172
CA No 337
of 2000, 11 May 2001, consideredR v Tilley [1999] QCA 424
CA No 244
of 1999, 7 October 1999, followedR v Walton CA No 338 of 1997, 18
November 1997, followed
Judgment (16 paragraphs)
[1]
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING - PRODUCING OR CULTIVATING - the applicant was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and producing methylamphetamine whilst on parole
[2]
JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - CUMULATIVE SENTENCES - where applicant's sentence was made cumulative - s156 A Penalties and Sentences Act
[3]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - FRESH EVIDENCE - PARTICULAR CASES - where evidence of applicant's past co-operation with authorities was available but not presented at trial as it contained material which was both favourable and unfavourable favourable to the applicant - whether such evidence should be received on appeal - where such evidence on the whole did not place the applicant in a more favourable position - R v Maniadis distinguished - further evidence not received
[4]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - PARITY - CO-OFFENDERS - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where a co-offender was trafficking in a first schedule drug as well as the methylamphetamine - where this fact together with the applicant's plea of guilty and co-operation with authorities should have resulted in a higher level of differentiation between the applicant's sentence and the co-offender's