9 Jul 2019
Leave to appeal against sentence refused because the sentencing judge properly identified and applied the relevant sentencing principles and authorities, correctly quantified the starting point, appropriately imposed enhancements for latent risk and offending while on bail, and correctly applied a 22.5% reduction for a late guilty plea; no error of law or principle was shown.
14 Jan 2014
Bail pending appeal was granted because the respondent did not oppose bail, conceded reduced sentencing starting point and enhancement, the applicant's appeal was reasonably arguable on the basis that the sentence may be manifestly excessive, and there was a material risk the applicant would otherwise have served a substantial part or completed her sentence before the leave to appeal was heard; bail was therefore appropriate on strict conditions.
23 Nov 2011
It is unacceptable to enhance a sentence for simple possession by assuming a present intention to traffic; however, it is permissible under established sentencing principles to impose a heavier sentence where the circumstances of possession create a real risk of distribution (latent risk). The application for a certificate under s.32(2) is refused because the principle is long-standing and of general application.
14 Jan 2005
The judge erred by failing to follow the established multi-step sentencing approach (identify starting point for simple possession, quantify any enhancement for latent risk, then adjust for mitigation). Applying that approach, the proper starting point was 18 months, the appropriate enhancement for the latent risk was 9 months (total 27 months) and after a one-third plea discount the sentence is 18 months; accordingly the original 28 month sentence was manifestly excessive and is quashed and substituted with 18 months imprisonment.
19 Apr 2001
The magistrate was correct to take latent risk into account but the 100% enhancement was excessive; proper enhancement was three months raising the 15-month starting point to 18 months, reduced by one-third for the guilty plea to 12 months; 75% of that (9 months) to run consecutively to the existing 22-month sentence producing a total effective sentence of 31 months. The magistrate erred in using a starting point beyond his jurisdictional limit for calculating plea discount, but that point was academic given the reduction ordered.
7 Feb 2001
The Court held that the correct starting point for this case was 18 months' imprisonment for simple possession of 15.724 grammes of methamphetamine, that a 12‑month enhancement for a significant latent risk was justified, producing 30 months before mitigation, and that having regard to mitigation the appropriate substituted sentence is two years' imprisonment; the trial judge's starting point of two years before enhancement (resulting in three years) was excessive and set aside.
27 Oct 1999
Appeal allowed because the magistrate erred in principle by suggesting the appellant was being sentenced for trafficking in part of the drugs and by failing to indicate a starting point; latent risk may enhance sentence but cannot substitute for proof of trafficking; sentence reduced to 12 months imprisonment.
29 Sept 1998
Where a defendant clearly would have pleaded guilty to simple possession but was required to contest a trafficking charge, the Court must start from the appropriate possession sentence (generally 12–18 months for a bona fide user's quantity), enhance it for any latent risk, and then apply the full one‑third guilty plea discount; failure to do so is an error warranting reduction of sentence.
10 Jul 1998
Although the sentencing judge applied incorrect reasoning by adopting a trafficking starting point and granting a one-third discount despite a conviction after trial, the final sentence lay within the range that should properly have been imposed for possession of a substantial quantity of heroin, therefore the application to appeal the sentence is dismissed.
12 Sept 1997
The Court held that the proper starting point for simple possession of the quantities in this case was three years and, applying the customary one-third discount for the plea, the appropriate sentence was two years; the original sentence of three years and four months was manifestly excessive and was reduced to two years imprisonment.