DAB v R; NJB v R

In the High Court of Australia, DAB and NJB appealed their convictions and sentences for drug offences. DAB was convicted of supplying ecstasy and NJB was convicted of manufacturing ecstasy. Both appeals concerned the sentences imposed by the courts below. The primary legal issues were whether the sentences were properly determined, considering the notional starting points, accumulation process, and objective seriousness of the offences.

The High Court found that the sentencing judges had erred in their approach. Firstly, the notional starting points for the sentences were incorrectly adopted, as they did not reflect the different levels of criminality between the two offences. Secondly, the process of accumulation was flawed, as the judges failed to consider the separate offences appropriately. Thirdly, the objective seriousness of the offences was assessed incorrectly, particularly in not considering the subjective material that was available, even if it was not the subject of oral evidence. The High Court held that these errors meant the sentences needed to be re-assessed.

The Court ordered that the cases be remitted to the courts below for re-sentencing. The judges were directed to correctly determine the notional starting points, properly apply the accumulation process, and accurately assess the objective seriousness of the offences, taking into account all relevant material. This included the subjective material that was available, even if it was not orally presented in court.