Court of Appeal

R v JZ [2017] QCA 065 (16/367) Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Douglas J 18 April 2017

Full-text: QCA17-065.pdf

Catchwords

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 an 18 month period and six other drug related offences, including producing methylamphetamine, possession of a weapon and possession of various dangerous drugs – where the applicant was sentenced to six years for the drug trafficking offence and two years or less for each of the other indictable offences, served concurrently – where the applicant also pleaded guilty to 13 summary charges including driving without a licence whilst disqualified by a court order – where the applicant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of four years – where the sentencing judge took into account the other summary offences in sentencing the indictable offences, but no further penalty was imposed – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge made errors of fact in the sentencing remarks – where the applicant disputes an inference of the sentencing judge that the appellant’s traffic history showed a “complete disregard of the law” – where the applicant argues that the danger to which he has been exposed by his willingness to cooperate with authorities was not taken into account by the sentencing judge – where the applicant’s trial counsel had broadly agreed with the sentence which was eventually imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive