5 May 2020
The Single Judge properly refused leave because the sentencing judge had rejected the applicant's claim that any of the drugs were for her own use; there were no reasonably arguable grounds for appeal and no basis for appellate interference with the exercise of sentencing discretion, so the renewed application for leave is dismissed (abandoned).
16 Aug 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge properly applied established sentencing guidelines, lawfully rejected an untested assertion that a significant proportion of the drugs were for personal consumption, correctly applied the combined approach and discounts, and the resulting sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
7 Aug 2015
The court refused leave because the sentencing exercise followed established authorities: a 7-year starting point for the relevant quantity of methamphetamine, reduced for personal consumption (25%) and then by the customary one-third for plea, yielding a 42-month sentence; there was no reasonably arguable ground to challenge that approach.