Fama v Tasmania

The appeal concerned the conduct of defence counsel and the appropriateness of a sentence imposed for trafficking in cannabis. The appellant, Fama, pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment, with three months suspended. Fama appealed against this sentence, arguing that his defence counsel had failed to take thorough instructions and had not adequately acquainted the sentencing judge with all relevant mitigating circumstances.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania were whether the conduct of defence counsel amounted to a failure to provide effective representation, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate in light of the circumstances of the offending, including the continuation of trafficking after arrest.

The Court considered the evidence regarding the instructions taken by defence counsel and the information presented to the sentencing judge. It was found that defence counsel had taken instructions and had presented mitigating factors to the court. The Court also noted that the appellant had continued to engage in trafficking activities after being arrested and charged, which was a significant factor in sentencing. Applying the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences, and considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not demonstrably wrong.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.