20 Nov 2025
The Court held the starting point of 7 years 4 months for the 16.08g of Ice was correct but the judge's 1 year 8 months enhancement for prior convictions was excessive; a 12-month enhancement was proportionate, producing a notional 8 years 4 months start and, after a one-third guilty plea reduction, a substituted sentence of 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
22 Jul 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because it was not reasonably arguable that the judge's overall starting point and enhancements were manifestly excessive given the applicant's role as an active dealer, the multiplicity and dangerous combination of drugs, and the Form 8 recognizance aggravation; the plea discount and totality disposition were correctly applied.
27 Nov 2019
The judge erred in methodology by applying the ecstasy sentencing guideline to the total quantity of narcotic (530.96g) instead of to the actual quantity of ecstasy (479.26g); correct methodology when using the combined approach is to apply the relevant guideline to the actual quantity of the identified base drug and then make an upward adjustment to account for other drugs, with cross‑checks (absurdity, conversion and ratio tests) informing the adjustment; leave to appeal against sentence was granted and the matter should proceed to the Court of Appeal for resentencing.
14 Nov 2018
The Court held the correct guideline starting point for 5.26g of methamphetamine was 5 years 1 month, enhanced by 3 months for the international element to 5 years 4 months. The narcotic content for self-consumption was assessed at about 1.5g (≈28.5% of 5.26g), which the Court regarded as a "significant proportion" meriting a 12% discount. After reducing the starting point by 12% and then by one third for the guilty plea, the proper sentence is 3 years and 1 month imprisonment. The Court further held that ‘‘significant proportion’’ is a fact-specific threshold and is not fixed at 50%.
28 Jul 2017
The Court held the judge did not err in principle: the combined approach and the adopted starting points (notional 35 years before discount) were appropriate given separate incidents, different drugs, the applicant's mastermind role, use of a 15-year-old, and international element; the guilty plea discounts were properly applied and the total sentence of 23 years 4 months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal was dismissed.
6 Apr 2017
The application for an extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the long delay and his grounds lacked merit: the sentencing judge did not commit appealable error in selecting the final starting point and applying the international enhancement, and any alleged arithmetical ambiguity would not have resulted in a reduced sentence for the applicant.
21 Sept 2012
The 6-year global starting point was manifestly excessive given that almost 90% of the seized drugs was the less potent ketamine; the appropriate global starting point was 5 years, and after applying the conventional one-third guilty plea discount the sentence should be 3 years and 4 months; accordingly leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed and the sentence reduced from 4 years to 3 years 4 months imprisonment.