Kelly v R

The case involved an applicant, Kelly, who sought leave to appeal against his sentence for supplying a prohibited drug. The applicant had been sentenced in the lower court on the basis of the authority set out in R v Clark, which held that drug trafficking in any substantial degree should lead to a sentence of full-time imprisonment unless there were exceptional circumstances. However, the High Court had subsequently overruled Clark in Parente v R, and the applicant argued that his sentence should be re-assessed in light of this change in the law. The issue before the court was whether a lesser sentence was warranted, and whether the sentence should be backdated to take account of the period the applicant had spent in residential rehabilitation as quasi-custody.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to have his sentence re-assessed in light of the change in the law. The court noted that the applicant had been sentenced on the basis of an authority that was no longer good law, and that the sentence was therefore not in accordance with the current state of the law. The court further held that a lesser sentence was warranted in this case, given the applicant's background and the fact that he had spent time in residential rehabilitation as quasi-custody. The court held that the sentence should be backdated to take account of this period, and that the applicant was entitled to be re-sentenced accordingly.

The court further held that the applicant was entitled to have his sentence re-assessed in light of the change in the law. The court noted that the applicant had been sentenced on the basis of an authority that was no longer good law, and that the sentence was therefore not in accordance with the current state of the law. The court further held that a lesser sentence was warranted in this case, given the applicant's background and the fact that he had spent time in residential rehabilitation as quasi-custody. The court held that the sentence should be backdated to take account of this period, and that the applicant was entitled to be re-sentenced accordingly. The court allowed the application for leave to appeal against sentence, and remitted the matter to the lower court for re-sentencing.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence was allowed, and that the matter was to be remitted to the lower court for re-sentencing. The court held that the applicant was entitled to have his sentence re-assessed in light of the change in the law, and that a lesser sentence was warranted in this case. The court further held that the sentence should be backdated to take account of the period the applicant had spent in residential rehabilitation as quasi-custody.