R v Griffith[2000] QCA 435

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA

MACKENZIE J

HELMAN J

CA No 206 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

BRETT RANDALL GRIFFITHApplicant

BRISBANE

DATE 20/10/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA:  On 14 July this year during the course of his trial for these offences the applicant pleaded guilty to the following:

1.That on 23 August 1998 he unlawfully had possession of the dangerous drug cannabis sativa.

2.That on 17 September 1998 he with another unlawfully supplied the dangerous drugs heroin and methylamphetamine to another person who was within a correctional institution.

3.That on 21 September 1998 he and another unlawfully supplied the dangerous drug methylamphetamine to another who was within a correctional institution.

On 27 July this year he was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, that sentence taking into account the belated pleas of guilty and the savings which they caused.  He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The learned sentencing judge rightly said that the circumstances in which these and other offences committed by the applicant's co-offenders occurred were extremely serious involving as they did the supply of drugs to persons in prison.  The activities of the offenders were discovered only when one of those involved went to police and confessed her involvement thereby implicating the others.

Offences of this kind strike not only at the heart of prison discipline but at the justice system itself.  Moreover, they are often difficult to detect.  This one would have been had not one of those involved voluntarily gone to police to confess. 

It is absolutely essential if prisoners are to be rehabilitated in prison that their environment be drug free.  If it is not, existing addicts will remain addicted, prisoners who are not previously addicted may become so and prisoners acquire drug debts which they can often only pay upon their release by committing further crimes.

The applicant is 40 years of age having been born on 2 June 1960.  Her Honour rightly described him as having had a very long and very serious criminal history.  He was imprisoned for the first time in 1981 for the offence of dangerous driving causing death.  Since then he has had many convictions for a variety of dishonesty offences involving various periods of imprisonment.  However, he has also been convicted of attempted rape and indecent assault on a female, attempted extortion and written threat to kill, attempting to escape from prison and taking part in a prison riot.

He emerged from prison having not received parole at the end of his last sentence only on 16 September 1998.  That is, after the commission of the first of the offences the subject of this application and immediately before the commission of the second of them.  The long history of criminal conduct and the commission of these offences during and immediately after his release from prison make it clear that the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation are remote.

In any event, deterrence must be the primary consideration in sentencing for offences of this kind.

It is unnecessary in my opinion to go into detail of comparable cases.  Those referred to in the schedule which were put before us show that the sentence imposed in this case was within range as do the various specific sentences relied on by Mr Chowdhury for the applicant.  Accordingly, I would refuse the application.

MACKENZIE J:  I agree.

HELMAN J:  I agree.

DAVIES JA:  The application is refused.

-----