Cant v The State of Western Australia

The applicant in this case sought leave to appeal against a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment imposed on him for possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply it. The applicant had been apprehended by police and informed them that he had approximately 69 grams of methylamphetamine at 21% purity on his person. The applicant admitted that the substance was methylamphetamine and that it was his intention to supply it to a third party. The applicant was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence should have been parity with the sentence of the co-offender, Nardone. The court considered the respective circumstances of the applicant and Nardone in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the quantity of methylamphetamine was considerable and at a high level of purity. The court also considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including his employment, care for his mother and brother, and his relationship with his daughter. However, the court observed that in an offence of this nature, personal matters do not carry the same weight as they might do in other cases. The court further found that there was no basis for the applicant's sentence to be parity with Nardone's sentence, as the quantity and purity of the methylamphetamine were different in each case.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence. However, the court noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences typically imposed for this type of offence. The court ordered that the applicant be eligible for parole after 2 years.