R v L[2002] QCA 485

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  I will invite Justice Davies to deliver the first judgment.

DAVIES JA:  The applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court on 18 July this year to three counts of supplying methylamphetamine on 1 June 2001, on 11 June 2001 and on 19 June 2001.  She was sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 12 months.  She seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

At the time of the sentence the applicant was 25 years of age.  She was about 24 when the offences were committed.  She has a minor criminal history which Mr Glynn SC today described as more bulk than seriousness, with which I agree.  Prior to the commission of these offences she had been convicted of unlawfully taking shop goods away in 1994, insulting words and obstructing police in 1995 and serious assault on a police officer in 1996.  On the first two of those offences she was fined and on the third she was sentenced to four months imprisonment wholly suspended.  She was then committed for a breach of bail undertaking in December 1999, for which she was fined in July 2001 after she had committed these offences. 

Then after the commission of these offences she committed an offence of being in possession of a dangerous drug and failing to dispose of a needle and syringe in November 2001 for which she was fined in January 2002.  And in February 2002 she was placed on probation for 18 months for three offences of stealing, one of fraud and one of use of a vehicle without consent of the owner.

The applicant is addicted to methylamphetamine and it seems also to marijuana.  She has three young children aged between 21 months and five years.  She was married at an early age and introduced to drugs by her then husband.  From the age of 16 she was working in a strip club.  She formed a relationship with a man involved in drugs who was physically abusive to her and who seriously assaulted her on a number of occasions.  He was apparently a drug dealer.

The three counts of supply were to an undercover police officer with a total amount of $11,000.  There is no doubt of the seriousness of these offences and although it may well be her main motivation in committing them was to feed her drug habit she also obtained some profit from the transactions.

There are a number of mitigating features requiring reduction of what otherwise would have been an appropriate sentence.  She made full and frank admissions to the police in her initial interview and she pleaded guilty to an ex officio indictment.  There is also some evidence of attempts by her including a recent and quite sustained attempt to rid herself of her drug habit.  Having regard to these factors the learned sentencing judge thought that an appropriate sentence would have been one of three years imprisonment without a recommendation for parole.  In other words his Honour thought that, after making allowance for the mitigating factors to which I have referred so far, three years was an appropriate sentence.

I have no doubt that a sentence of about three years would have been an appropriate one for offences of this seriousness, having regard to her previous criminal record, but personal factors to which I have referred would, however, have justified some reduction of this.  Whether a sentence of three years imprisonment sufficiently takes those factors into account I think may be doubted, but I am prepared to accept that the sentence which his Honour indicated is not so high as to be manifestly excessive when those factors are taken into account.

His Honour stated this sentence, as he was required to do under section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1922 (Qld) before indicating what sentence he would actually impose in view of the extensive cooperation which the applicant gave to the police.  This involved giving detailed evidence not only in relation to her own involvement but also about the operations and practices of two drug dealers, one of whom was suspected of being a major drug dealer by the police but against whom the police had no evidence.  She also agreed to give evidence against him and has already done so on his committal.

This Court has said more than once that, especially in the case of drug offences, substantial discount should be given to a person who is prepared to give information about other, especially more serious offenders.  As indicated in R v Thompson (1994) 76 A Crim R 75, reductions in the sentence of 50 per cent or even more have been given in some cases.  Of course the reduction which is given in any case will depend on the circumstances of the case, but it is important to emphasise that revealing and enabling the apprehension of manufacturers and traffickers in a drug as dangerous as methylamphetamine is important for the suppression of those crimes and should be reflected in a significant way in sentencing.

It is plain that the applicant has given considerable help to police at substantial personal risk.  We were told by Mr Glynn SC today that the first of the offenders I referred to threatened the applicant during the course of his committal proceedings.  That is not surprising and that threat remains over the applicant's head.

In the present case, after taking into account the factors other than this assistance, the applicant would have been eligible for parole after serving 18 months of her sentence.  Suspension after serving 12 months is, in my view, an insubstantial reduction when one has regard to the extent of the cooperation which the applicant has given and is prepared to still give and the risk to her personal safety which she has undertaken in order to do so.

I think the sentence should have been suspended after the applicant had served only six months.  I would accordingly therefore grant the application, allow the appeal and set aside the sentences only to the extent of deleting the order for suspension after 12 months and order that the sentence be suspended after the applicant has served six months  imprisonment.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  I agree.

MULLINS J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The order is as indicated by Justice Davies.