McGrath v The State of Western Australia

In this case, the Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court of Western Australia heard an appeal against sentence from the appellant, Ashley Malcolm McGrath, who was convicted of possessing a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The appellant had 985 g of methylamphetamine in his possession and had a minor role in the transportation of the drugs. The Court was required to determine whether the sentence of 8 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was resentenced to 5 years 9 months' imprisonment.

The Court examined the principles relevant to an allegation that a sentence is manifestly excessive, which were summarised in Kabambi v The State of Western Australia. It was noted that sentencing is a discretionary exercise, and an appellate court can intervene only if the appellant demonstrates either an express or implied material error. The end result must be so unreasonable or unjust that the court must conclude that a substantial wrong has occurred.

The Court considered the maximum penalty for the offence, the place which the offending conduct occupied on the scale of seriousness of offences of that kind, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The appellant's offending was characterised as serious, as he willingly assisted in the transportation of a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine. However, the Court found that the extent of the appellant's involvement put his criminality towards the lowest end of the scale of seriousness of offences of this kind. The appellant's offending was described as fleeting and opportunistic, with no contact with those who were instructing his friend to transport the drugs. The Court also took into account the appellant's plea of guilty, for which there was a 25% discount, as well as the appellant's personal circumstances and the other mitigating factors.

In light of these factors, the Court concluded that the sentence of 8 years' imprisonment was not merely high, but rather, was properly characterised as unreasonable or plainly unjust. The Court resentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of 5 years 9 months, which was taken to have commenced on 22 March 2020, and the appellant was made eligible for parole.