Ndreka v The Queen

This matter concerned an appeal against sentence by the applicant, Mr Ndreka, who had been convicted of a mid-tier drug cultivation offence under the Controlled Substances Act. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. This required the Court to consider the principles governing appellate interference with sentencing, particularly the threshold for demonstrating that a sentence is unreasonably high or plainly unjust. The Court also had to assess the relevance of the applicant's limited role in the cultivation enterprise and his personal circumstances against the seriousness of the offence and the sentencing range for such matters.

The Court applied the well-established principles for determining manifest excess, as summarised in cases such as *Dinsdale v The Queen* and *Hili v The Queen*, which require the appellate court to be satisfied that the sentence is outside the range of sentences that might reasonably have been imposed. In the context of drug cultivation, the Court noted that relevant factors include the offender's motivation and role, the scale and nature of the cultivation, the number and maturity of plants, and the anticipated yield and street value. These factors are to be considered within the statutory tiered structure of cultivation offences. The applicant's submissions focused on his limited role and good character, arguing that the sentencing judge's starting point of 18 months imprisonment was too high.

The Full Court ultimately refused permission to appeal. Bleby JA agreed with Doyle JA that permission to appeal should be refused for the reasons given. The sentencing judge had accepted that a suspended sentence of imprisonment, conditional upon the applicant entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for three years, was appropriate.