Greer v The Queen

The case of Greer v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence imposed by the primary judge. Greer was convicted of two offences of ongoing supply of prohibited drugs. The two offences occurred during the same period but involved different drugs. The primary judge decided to accumulate the sentences by three years, which Greer argued was excessive. The appeal was based on the principle that the additional criminality in the second offence was not substantial.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the accumulation of the sentences by three years was appropriate. The appeal court had to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing, particularly in relation to the degree of additional criminality in the second offence. The court had to determine whether the sentence was excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The appeal court found that the primary judge had not adequately considered the degree of additional criminality in the second offence. The court emphasised that while both offences involved ongoing supply of prohibited drugs, the fact that they involved different drugs did not necessarily equate to a significant increase in criminality. The court held that the accumulation of the sentences by three years was excessive and not justified by the additional criminality in the second offence. The sentence was therefore set aside and the case was remitted to the primary judge for re-sentencing.

The final orders of the court were that the sentences imposed by the primary judge were set aside and the case was remitted for re-sentencing. The court did not impose a new sentence but directed that the primary judge consider the appropriate sentence in light of the court’s findings.