R v Turner
[2007] QCA 70
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 Turner[2007] QCA 70
- Add to List
R v Turner[2007] QCA 70
R v Turner[2007] QCA 70
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | R v Turner [2007] QCA 70 |
PARTIES: | R v Turner, Angus Robert (applicant) |
FILE NO/S: | CA No 331 of 2006 SC No 799 of 2005 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 9 March 2007 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 9 March 2007 |
JUDGE: | McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made |
ORDER: | Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to various drug offences – where applicant sentenced to nine months imprisonment with parole release date from the date of sentence – where applicant breached conditions of parole – where applicant contends that a fully suspended sentence would have been more appropriate – whether sentence manifestly excessive |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf R Pointing for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent |
THE PRESIDENT: Justice Mackenzie will deliver his reasons first.
MACKENZIE J: The applicant pleaded guilty to offences of producing methylamphetamine, possession of methylamphetamine, possession of cannabis and possession of things used in the production of methylamphetamine.
He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, with a parole release date fixed as the date of sentence. The offences came to police attention in an unusual way. The applicant had been renting a room from another man who lived in the house.
On the day prior to the police becoming involved, a fire broke out in the kitchen. The landlord, who extinguished the fire, formed the opinion that the applicant was engaging in cooking amphetamines; however, he merely warned the applicant not to do it again, rather than reporting the incident to the police.
The next morning the applicant attacked his landlord, who then complained to the police about the assault and the drug activities. When the premises were searched, the police found small quantities of methylamphetamine and cannabis. In the garage, they found reagents, glassware and a glass bottle, typical of equipment used to produce methylamphetamine. Further inquiries revealed that the applicant and a female associate had been recorded by a hardware outlet's surveillance system when they were buying chemicals of the kind found.
The female pleaded guilty only to producing methylamphetamine, based on her involvement in procuring the chemicals and that plea was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment against her. She was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, fully suspended for an operational period of 12 months.
The learned sentencing Judge sentenced the applicant to nine months' imprisonment, with immediate release on parole. He expressed the view that actual time in custody was not warranted for the criminality of the four offences to which he had pleaded guilty.
In sentencing at that level, the learned sentencing Judge took into account that the applicant was the major player in the series of events which the learned sentencing Judge regarded as a not terribly large or consequential production of methylamphetamine.
The other charges related to small amounts of drugs. He took into account that the applicant's convictions, which pre-dated the present offences, were predominantly for traffic offences; the one drug offence was about 10 years earlier.
Methylamphetamine is a First Schedule drug. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that a sentence of nine months' imprisonment, with immediate release, which took into account the plea of guilty and the applicant's personal circumstances, was within range for offences of this kind and level of seriousness. I accept that as being correct.
The real complaint by the applicant is that he would have preferred a fully suspended sentence. It was, however, clearly open to the learned sentencing Judge to structure the sentence by giving an immediate release on parole, rather than a suspended sentence.
The subsequent history of relapsing into offending behaviour while subject to Court orders, before these matters were dealt with, supported the conclusion that supervision was preferable to release on suspended sentence, as did the psychological report tendered at sentence on behalf of the applicant. I note also that the form of sentence proposed by the Crown Prosecutor was not disagreed with by counsel below.
In addition to those issues, the applicant raised conditions of his parole and the fact that at the time he breached them he was in a period of personal stress, including the loss of his mother. Unfortunately, within the scope and confines of this application for leave to appeal against sentence, we can do nothing about those matters.
In my view, the sentences were not manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore refused.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree.
JERRARD JA: I agree, because the fact that Mr Turner has breached his parole, does not show that it was a manifestly excessive sentence to give him immediate parole. That sentence gave him a chance. Mr Turner now has to try and get himself released on parole again, although it should be said that he is a little unlucky, in that some of the time he has spent in custody before being sentenced, cannot be declared as time served.
Accepting that fact, the sentence he was originally given with immediate release on parole, is not a manifestly excessive sentence, despite what has happened since then.
THE PRESIDENT: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.