The Queen v Watt[1997] QCA 430

McPHERSON JA:  I will ask Mr Justice de Jersey to give the first judgment.

de JERSEY J:  Over a period of approximately six months, the applicant carried on the business of trafficking in heroin.  He pleaded guilty to that and to associated charges of supplying and possession of heroin and possession and production of cannabis and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with parole consideration recommended after two years and four months.

He was 40 years old at the time.  He made 12 sales to an undercover police officer, involving 2.79 grams of pure heroin for $5400.  His object however was to satisfy his own addiction by using some of the drugs supplied by his own supplier.

The sentencing Judge found that the undercover agent was not his only customer, although it was not possible to form a view about the extent of his sales to others.  He has many convictions for past drug offences including supplying heroin dating back to when he was 24 years old.

Before the sentencing Judge, the Crown Prosecutor proposed a range of seven to nine years although he eventually suggested a sentence of seven to eight years with a recommendation reflecting a plea of guilty.  Defence counsel indicated that he took no issue with the range proposed by the Prosecutor.  In the event he received, as I have said, seven years with a recommendation after two years and four months.

That appears to be consistent with the cases, especially Tho Le, Court of Appeal number 291 of 1995, where the Court indicated a range of seven to nine years as applicable not only to a person involved for commercial reasons, but to Tho Le himself in that case who Mr Justice Thomas described as "not gaining any very extensive profit in the activity" his "main purpose being to feed his own habit".

In these circumstances where the sentencing Judge has imposed a term from the bottom of that suggested range and added what can only be regarded as a quite generous recommendation with relation to parole, it is not appropriate, in my view, for this Court to interfere.

The recommendation with relation to parole was for consideration after two years and four months by contrast with three and a half years which would be the ordinary situation and as the Judge indicated, he took that course largely in recognition of the plea of guilty and the saving of public resources which that entailed.

I would not interfere and I would refuse the application.

McPHERSON JA:  Yes, I agree.

PINCUS JA:  I agree and I would only add, with respect to the applicant's cooperation, that while it is commendable that he pleaded guilty, it would have been even more commendable and would no doubt have produced a very substantial reduction in his sentence if he had explained to the police from whom he was purchasing the drugs.

McPHERSON JA:  The order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.