R v Morcus
[2003] QCA 279
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 Morcus[2003] QCA 279
- Add to List
R v Morcus[2003] QCA 279
R v Morcus[2003] QCA 279
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 8 July 2003 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 8 July 2003 |
JUDGES: | Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA |
ORDER: | Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CHARACTER OF OFFENCE – DRUG OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of production, trafficking and possession of cannabis and possession of money obtained from trafficking – where sentenced to six years and six months imprisonment – where applicant young – where early plea of guilty and high level of cooperation – whether learned trial judge should have made a recommendation for early release on parole – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive R v Holt, Marino & Marino, unreported Supreme Court of Queensland, 3 February 2003, referred to |
COUNSEL: | J D Griffiths for the applicant |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
DAVIES JA: I will ask Justice Williams to deliver his reasons first.
WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 19th of March 2003 to four counts on the indictment presented against him. He pleaded guilty to production of cannabis in excess of 500 grams, trafficking in cannabis, possession of cannabis and possession of money obtained from trafficking.
He was sentenced to six years and six months' imprisonment on the trafficking count, a six month concurrent sentence for the possession of money and no additional penalty was imposed on the other counts. Two days pre-sentence custody was taken into account.
He seeks leave to appeal against the sentence, primarily submitting that the sentence is manifestly excessive because of the failure of the learned sentencing Judge to make a recommendation for early release on parole to reflect his age, personal antecedents, early plea of guilty and level of cooperation.
The material before the Court discloses that following the receipt of information, police went to three parcels of land owned by the applicant. There they saw all the signs of large scale trafficking and production of cannabis. When police arrived, they found a complex irrigation system, drying sheds and other equipment. There was evidence of crops having been harvested. Approximately 152 kilograms of cannabis was found in various containers. Paperwork consistent with the business of trafficking was found.
As the learned sentencing Judge said in the course of her sentencing remarks, "The applicant was engaged in a large scale cannabis production and trafficking." He was aged 57 at the time of arrest and had no previous convictions. It was accepted, as already noted, that the pleas of guilty were timely entered.
The learned sentencing Judge, in the course of her sentencing remarks, referred to the decision of this Court in Parsons, CA No 110 of 1999 and the sentence imposed by Justice Byrne on Marino, SC No 559 of 2002, sentence imposed 3 February 2003.
In Parsons, the sentence imposed was eight years' imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole after three and a half years. Parsons had a significant criminal history, whereas, as noted, this applicant had none.
In Marino, the sentence imposed was six and a half years' imprisonment. That matter related to trafficking over a lengthy period of time. In my view, when all the matters are taken into consideration, as is demonstrated by those authorities, the sentence imposed here was well within range.
The operation was, as I have indicated, a commercial one and in those circumstances, in my view, it cannot be said that the sentence was manifestly excessive. I would refuse leave to appeal against the sentence.
DAVIES JA: I agree.
JERRARD JA: I agree.
DAVIES JA: The order is as indicated by Justice Williams.