10 Apr 2019
Applicant not entitled to credit for assistance because his information was unavailing and there was no culpable police inaction; the judge's adoption of a 20 years 3 months starting point for the aggregate ketamine quantity and reduction to a total of 13.5 years after plea and totality adjustments was appropriate; leave to appeal out of time refused and appeal dismissed.
26 May 2017
The judge's adoption of a 6-year starting point for trafficking 83g of ketamine and reduction by one third for the guilty plea to arrive at 4 years' imprisonment was within the established guidelines (Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng) and not open to successful challenge; therefore leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
11 Apr 2017
The Court refused leave because the sentencing judge adopted the correct starting point (6 years) under established guidelines, reasonably applied a 12.5% reduction for self-consumption based on the case facts, and properly applied the guilty-plea discount, so there was no error of law or principle amounting to excessive sentence.
13 Mar 2017
The judge correctly applied established sentencing authorities for ketamine trafficking and properly adopted a 17-year starting point for approximately 1.8kg of ketamine, reduced by one-third for the guilty plea, producing a sentence of 11 years 4 months; the applicant's role as a courier and his youth or family circumstances did not justify a greater discount and there was no error justifying appellate interference.
16 Dec 2015
The sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within established sentencing guidelines: given the quantity of ketamine (1.64kg) and the applicant's admitted role in repacking the drug (supported by paraphernalia found), a starting point of 15 years reduced by one third for the guilty plea to 10 years was appropriate; the applicant's assistance was not sufficiently helpful to merit further discount and comparative first-instance decisions were distinguishable on the facts.
17 Jun 2014
The court held that a 50% discount for the applicant’s guilty plea and evidence given at others' trials was appropriate; although the judge’s stated enhanced starting point was low and not transparently broken down, the resulting 9-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the importation of 2,660 grams of ketamine and the applicable sentencing principles, so leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
11 Nov 2013
The Court held that a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order was inappropriate for possession of approximately 200g of ketamine given the very high risk of dissemination and the need for deterrence; the original sentence was therefore manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle and should be set aside and substituted by a custodial sentence of two years' imprisonment (taking into account allowance for early plea, time already served and the distress of having sentence increased).
4 Jun 2013
Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused because the court found no arguable merit: the judge properly accepted police evidence that the ketamine was found in the applicant's trouser pocket and that scales and packaging were in his bag, the discrepancies were minor and did not affect credibility, and the 6 year sentence fell within established sentencing bands and was appropriate.
30 May 2012
The sentence of six years and nine months was appropriate under the applicable guidelines and the one-third plea discount properly absorbed the mitigation including charitable donations; the forfeiture of $13,100 and six mobile telephones was justified under s.102(1)(c) as they were used in the commission of drug trafficking; counsel was not incompetent and, even if representation had been less coherent, the evidence made forfeiture inevitable.
2 Aug 2011
The conspiracy was an open-ended distribution network under the applicant's control, making his culpability greater than for a single-instance trafficking based solely on the seized quantity; the sentencing judge's higher starting point for the ringleader was within legitimate discretion and not excessive, so leave to appeal against sentence was refused.