Court of Appeal

R v Cunha; R v Rosso Bernardo [2017] QCA 006 (16/88) Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Douglas J 7 February 2017

Full-text: QCA17-006.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the first applicant Cunha pleaded guilty to importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years – where the applicant contended that the sentence imposed did not take into account his guilty plea, lack of a criminal history, remorse, prospects for rehabilitation, voluntary work, and personal circumstances – where the respondent contended all factors were taken into account – where the personal circumstances submitted as relevant by the applicant arose after the sentence was imposed – whether the sentencing judge took into account all relevant factors at the time of sentencing – whether the sentence was within the range suggested by comparable cases – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the second applicant Bernardo pleaded guilty to importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug and was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months – where the second applicant pleaded guilty to an offence with a higher maximum penalty than the first applicant– where the second applicant contended that the parity principle should have been applied so that the second applicant received the same sentence as the first applicant – where the respondent contended that the second applicant’s offending was objectively more serious than the first applicant’s – whether the principle of parity was applied to the extent possible under the statutory regime – whether the sentencing judge addressed the differences between the two offenders – whether, all other factors being equal, the second applicant should receive a more serious sentence than the first applicant because he plead guilty a similar offence with a higher maximum sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive