Court of Appeal

R v Brookes [2017] QCA 063 (16/182) Gotterson and Morrison and McMurdo JJA 11 April 2017

Full-text: QCA17-063.pdf


CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – NON-PAROLE PERIOD OR MINIMUM TERM – QUEENSLAND – PARTICULAR CASES – where the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to a term of five years’ imprisonment for a drug trafficking offence cumulative upon a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for other offending – where s 182A Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) had the effect that the applicant was not eligible for parole until he had served 80 per cent of his term for the drug trafficking offence – where the sentencing judge fixed a parole eligibility date four years from the commencement of imprisonment for both offences rather than four years into the five year term of imprisonment for drug trafficking – whether the sentence complied with s 182A(3) Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in methylamphetamine over a six month period at a wholesale and retail level and other possession offences – where the applicant had been in custody for two months during the trafficking period but continued to manage the operation from prison – where the operation was large scale and the applicant had customers owing him amounts in the order of $20,000 and $30,000 – where the applicant was aged 50-51 years and had a relevant criminal history but had been a “largely law abiding citizen for many years” – where the applicant’s addiction to methylamphetamine provided some explanation for his conduct but the scale of the operation went beyond merely supporting his habit – where two co-offenders acted under his direction, were each at least 20 years younger than the applicant and with less serious criminal histories, and both received sentences of four years’ imprisonment – where the applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the trafficking offence – where the applicant’s trial counsel had broadly agreed with the sentence which was eventually imposed – whether the sentencing judge had properly applied the principle of parity between co-offenders – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive