R v Joiner[2025] QCA 28

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   THE COURT:  On 14 March 2025, the Court refused an application for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the learned sentencing judge for the offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs and possessing tainted property.  The following are the reasons leave was refused.
2. [2]
   On 22 October 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine and gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) between 9 June 2022 and 13 May 2023, and to possessing tainted property in the form of a bankcard, personal digital assistant table, and car keys.^[1]
3. [3]
   For the trafficking offence, the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for three years and six months, suspended after ten months, with an operational period of three years and six months.  For the possession of tainted property, charged as a summary offence, the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for ten months with an order that he then be released under supervision of an authorised Corrective Services officer for a period of two years, pursuant to s 92(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).
4. [4]
   By a proposed notice of appeal, the applicant would have raised only one ground of appeal, that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive.  In an outline of submissions filed on 19 February 2025, the applicant’s counsel seemed to add another proposed ground of appeal, namely that the sentencing judge “erred in the exercise of his discretion in the application of R v Staines [2022] QCA 187 as an appropriate yard stick.”  On further consideration, this could not have been a separate ground of appeal, but merely an aspect of the proposed manifestly excessive ground.

The sentencing hearing

5. [5]
   The applicant’s pleas and the sentencing hearing proceeded based on an agreed statement of facts.  The following facts and circumstances may be derived from it.
6. [6]
   The applicant was aged 35 and 36 over the eleven-month trafficking period.  He was 37 when sentenced.  He sold the dangerous drugs to 13 customers.  He used several messaging platforms, including two encrypted platforms, to communicate with his customers.  He dealt in quantities between 0.5 to 3.5 grams of methylamphetamine, which is a Schedule 1 dangerous drug, and between 10 and 30 ml of GHB.  Given these small quantities, it is likely the applicant’s customers were “end users” of these drugs, rather than persons supplying the drugs to others.  In common parlance, it was street-level trafficking.  Twice he offered to supply an ounce (or 28 grams) of methylamphetamine for $5,500.
7. [7]
   The applicant accepted payment by cash and by bank transfer for the drugs he trafficked.  Twice during the trafficking period, he supplied drugs to customers on credit.
8. [8]
   The value of the applicant’s trafficking business could not be quantified.  On 12 May 2023, when police searched his home, they found $2,825 in cash on him.  He pleaded guilty to possessing this sum as proceeds of his trafficking.  Messages between 10 June 2022 and 11 May 2023 indicate he sold $4,150 worth of drugs.
9. [9]
   At the time of this offending, the maximum penalty for trafficking in a dangerous drug was 25 years imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for the possession of tainted property was two years imprisonment.

Crown submissions on sentence

10. [10]
    The Crown prosecutor placed before the sentencing judge evidence of the following matters, none of which was disputed by the applicant at the sentencing hearing.
11. [11]
    The applicant had a relevant criminal history.  He had been before the Magistrates Court on five occasions for drug-related offending, once for fraud and fraud-related offences, once for making counterfeit money, once for entering premises, and once for breaches of bail conditions.  He had committed 32 offences between 2016 and 2022, when he was aged between 28 and 35.  He had been fined several times, twice placed on recognisance to be of good behaviour, and twice sentenced to probation.
12. [12]
    At about the mid-point of his trafficking offending, the applicant was convicted of possessing utensils that had been used, unlawful possession of weapons and possession of stolen property.  He continued offending, apparently undeterred by this contact with the criminal justice system.
13. [13]
    In written submissions, the Crown prosecutor identified the decisions of this Court to dismiss appeals against sentence in R v Staines [2022] QCA 187 (where a sentence of imprisonment for three and a half years, cumulative on an existing 14 month sentence, with parole eligibility after eight months in custody, was imposed) and R v Mikula [2015] QCA 102 (where a sentence of imprisonment for four years, suspended after 16 months with an operational period of four years, was imposed).
14. [14]
    The Crown prosecutor set out the material facts in each case in his written submissions.  He made no written submission comparing the applicant’s position with that of the offender in either case.  He told the sentencing judge:

“Given that there doesn’t seem to be any real controversy over the appropriate head sentence here, I don’t intend to take your Honour through those, unless I could be of assistance.”

15. [15]
    His Honour told the Crown prosecutor he had read the information about the two decisions in the Crown’s written submissions.
16. [16]
    The Crown prosecutor submitted that a sentence of three and a half years to four years imprisonment would be appropriate for the trafficking offence, with parole eligibility or the sentence suspended after the applicant had served one third of the head sentence in custody.

Defence submissions on sentence

17. [17]
    The applicant’s defence counsel placed before the sentencing judge a pre-sentence psychological report, drug test results for tests between February and October 2024, two letters of engagement or acknowledgement from Drug ARM of May and September 2024, and a character reference.
18. [18]
    In written submissions, defence counsel referred to Staines and Mikula.
19. [19]
    In those submissions, defence counsel noted that in Staines “there were circumstances more serious than in the present matter as it was conducted on a greater scale than here”, specifically:

“The trafficking was conducted at a time the offender was on parole …  That is an aggravating feature.

He had 19 repeat customers with 44 actual supplies, 14 offers to supply and 5 occasions of doing acts preparatory to supply …

It involved amounts of money greater than here”.

20. [20]
    In respect of Mikula, the written submissions stated that:

“The sentence reflected additional criminality that related to contravention of domestic violence orders and possession of a pistol, 3 rifles, a knuckle duster and 3 knives.  It was also noted … that it would have been open to impose a more lenient penalty.”

21. [21]
    The applicant’s defence counsel made no oral submissions about either decision, but relied on his written submissions.
22. [22]
    The applicant’s defence counsel submitted that an appropriate head sentence for the trafficking offence would be three and a half years imprisonment, with parole release after serving eight to twelve months of the head sentence in custody.

The sentence

23. [23]
    The sentencing judge expressly took into account the applicant’s early guilty pleas, reducing the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed and, in particular, in structuring the sentence and the period that the applicant would be required to serve in custody.
24. [24]
    His Honour also considered the applicant’s genuine remorse for his offending, and the fact that he had taken genuine steps in rehabilitation by seeking to address his addiction to methylamphetamine.
25. [25]
    His Honour said:

“Ordinarily, I would have set your period of actual imprisonment somewhere around one-third of the head sentence, but what I think is your genuine steps trying to rehabilitate means that I should reduce that somewhat further.”

26. [26]
    The sentencing judge noted the nature and extent of the trafficking, and the applicant’s addiction as an underlying driver of his offending.  His Honour considered that personal deterrence and general deterrence were relevant to the sentence to be imposed.
27. [27]
    As to the two decisions of this Court noted in the parties’ written submissions, his Honour said:

“I was taken to the authorities by counsel for the DPP in relation to trafficking matters.  I accept the guideposts that he identified in his submissions.  In my view, the appropriate head sentence is at the three and a-half year mark on the trafficking count.  This is largely due to the fact of the lack of evidence of a real intensity and the fact that you were a drug addict dealing at street level.”

Consideration of the proposed ground(s) of appeal

28. [28]
    For at least 20 years,^[2] it has been the settled view of this Court that a sentence of imprisonment for three to five years is within the sound exercise of sentencing discretion for offenders convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine, even at the lower end of the scale of seriousness.
29. [29]
    The sentence imposed for the applicant’s offending was of this order.
30. [30]
    The applicant was afforded additional amelioration in the sentences, by suspending the trafficking sentence after ten months in custody, i.e. after less than a quarter of the head sentence will have been served.  The prison-probation sentence on the summary charge was fixed to transition the applicant from custody to the community at the same point in time.
31. [31]
    The sentence imposed is reasonable.  It is not plainly unjust.  We would not infer from the sentence that the sentencing judge’s discretion miscarried.
32. [32]
    As was noted in the course of argument of the appeal, it is conceivable that a sentencing judge might have imposed the sentence for which it appears the applicant would contend, if granted leave to appeal, namely three years’ imprisonment.  It is possible, depending upon an assessment of the applicant’s circumstances, that such a sentence might have been suspended after six months in custody.  That would be a light sentence for the applicant’s trafficking offence.  This observation in no way indicates an error on the part of the sentencing judge.
33. [33]
    Nor was there any error in the limited consideration the sentencing judge gave to this Court’s decision in Staines.  The case was not identified as establishing any point of principle that his Honour was bound to follow or apply.  His Honour did not act on it as if he were so bound.  It was simply a yardstick against which the sentencing judge could examine a possible sentence, given the identified facts of that case and the similarities and differences between it and the applicant’s offending and relevant circumstances.  Such an examination could not reveal any error in the exercise of discretion his Honour undertook in sentencing the applicant.