R v Anderson
[2002] QCA 466
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- R v Anderson[2002] QCA 466
- Add to List
R v Anderson[2002] QCA 466
R v Anderson[2002] QCA 466
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON: | 1 November 2002 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 1 November 2002 |
JUDGES: | de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J |
ORDER: | The application is refused |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where applicant appeals against his sentence of eight years’ imprisonment for unlawfully trafficking in heroin – where applicant had a substantial prior criminal history including drug offending but had not previously been imprisoned – where there was no circumstance obliging the learned sentencing Judge to add any recommendation for early eligibility for parole |
COUNSEL: | M J Byrne for the applicant |
SOLICITORS: | Noel Woodall & Associates for the applicant |
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment following his conviction by a jury of the offence of carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking in heroin.
The trafficking occurred over the period June to November 2000 at a time when the applicant was aged 42 to 43 years. It involved 80 to 100 identified sales to one Buxton for approximately $7,000. They were therefore smallish street level sales. Sometimes the applicant used couriers.
The sentencing Judge took the view that the applicant probably had other customers and that was a reasonable inference. He could obtain the drug easily. He used a car and a mobile phone. He had a drug problem himself and had attempted to wean himself off narcotics but not completely successfully.
He had a substantial prior criminal history including drug offending, but he had not previously been imprisoned. Significantly, he was on the 17th of July 2000 sentenced in the Magistrates Court for possession of dangerous drugs on the 26th of June 2000, which was at the beginning of the trafficking period.
The sentence of eight years' imprisonment following conviction at a trial for trafficking of this order sits comfortably within the range suggested by a number of comparable cases: Le [1996] 2 Queensland Reports 516 and 520 to 521; Le [2001] Queensland Court of Appeal 290; Giang, Court of Appeal 313 of 1997 and Pascoe, Court of Appeal 184 of 1997.
The applicant having gone to trial, there was no circumstance obliging the learned Judge to add any recommendation for early eligibility for parole. I would refuse the application.
McPHERSON JA: I agree.
MULLINS J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.