Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Blackman; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Jomaa

The two appeals, Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Blackman and Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Jomaa, were heard together by the High Court. Each appellant pleaded guilty to offences of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of cocaine. The Crown appealed against the sentences imposed by the lower courts, arguing that they were manifestly inadequate. The Crown did not contend that there was an error of principle or error in findings by the sentencing judges, but rather focused on the maximum penalty, the quantity of the drug, the role of the offenders, and sentences imposed in other cases.

The central issue in these appeals was whether the sentences imposed by the lower courts were manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate in light of the maximum penalty for the offence, the quantity of cocaine involved, the role of the offenders, and sentences imposed in similar cases. Additionally, the Crown argued that the discount for assistance was manifestly excessive. The appellants, on the other hand, contended that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances and that the discount for assistance was not excessive.

The High Court found that the Crown had not established that the sentences were manifestly inadequate. The Court noted that the sentences imposed were within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the offence, considering the circumstances and the sentencing principles. The Court also found that the discount for assistance was not manifestly excessive, as it was generally consistent with the findings of the sentencing judge regarding the value of the assistance provided. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in each case.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the Crown's appeals against the sentences imposed on the appellants, finding that the sentences were not manifestly inadequate and that the discount for assistance was not excessive. No further orders were made by the Court.