Medan v The Queen

In the matter of Medan v The Queen, the appellant, Medan, appealed against his sentence for conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug, namely MDMA. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The key issues for determination were whether Medan was denied procedural fairness at his sentencing hearing and whether the head sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether procedural fairness was observed during the sentencing hearing. Medan and the Crown had filed and served written submissions prior to the hearing, with the Crown accepting that Medan's role in the offending was less than that of other co-conspirators but still of great importance. During the hearing, counsel for both parties made extensive submissions, with the Crown acknowledging Medan's junior role but still emphasising its significance. The sentencing judge later recognised the importance of Medan's role, aligning it with that of other co-conspirators, as evidenced by the discount given for his early plea and the absence of substantial commerciality in his sentence compared to others.

The Full Court concluded that the sentencing judge had indeed recognised Medan's significant role in the conspiracy, despite his lower position in the hierarchy. The court found that procedural fairness was observed and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Full Court upheld the sentence imposed by the primary judge.

The Full Court made no order altering the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The appeal was dismissed.