Court of Appeal

R v Stevens [2017] QCA 061 (15/212) Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Atkinson J 11 April 2017

Full-text: QCA17-061.pdf


CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug, producing a dangerous drug and supplying dangerous drugs after a 28 day trial – where the ground of appeal was that the jury’s verdict is unsupportable and against the weight of the evidence – where the appellant was producing, trafficking and supplying dangerous drugs with help from a number of persons – where the other persons gave evidence that the appellant owned a pill press and directed the drug operation – where one witness gave evidence to the Crime and Misconduct Commission – where the appellant argued that the witness’ evidence could not be accepted because the witness had reasons to reduce his own involvement in the trafficking scheme and his evidence was therefore incredible and unreliable – where the trial judge directed the jury that it would be dangerous to convict on the evidence of that person alone unless the jury found that it was supported by other independent evidence – where other evidence included cash, drugs and things used to produce drugs seized by police, recorded conversations and text messages – whether the verdicts were supported by other evidence – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was guilty

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment for carrying on the business of unlawfully trafficking dangerous drugs – where a conviction was recorded but there was no further punishment for the count of producing a dangerous drug – where the applicant submitted that the sentence is manifestly excessive when compared to sentences imposed on co-offenders, related offenders and in similar cases – where the applicant did not complain about the facts considered by the sentencing judge but contended that the sentencing judge erred in their application of the parity principle – where the respondent submitted that the applicant was higher in the organisational chain than related offenders – where the court should only interfere with a sentence where there has been a departure of principle by the sentencing judge – whether the sentence is comparable to those imposed on offenders in similar cases – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive