Pantorno v The Queen

The case of *Pantorno v The Queen* came before the High Court of Australia by way of an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Pantorno, sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The respondent was The Queen. The application to extend time for lodging the special leave application was not opposed.

The primary legal issues before the High Court concerned the applicant's right to know the maximum sentence to which he was exposed upon entering a plea of guilty. Specifically, the applicant argued that he was denied the opportunity to discharge a burden of proof, imposed by section 7J(1)(b) of the *Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act*, to establish a mitigating factor. The applicant also contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal, in altering the understanding of the law and dismissing the appeal, compounded the problem by not allowing him the opportunity to give evidence that the drugs were for his own use.

The applicant accepted the interpretation of the statute previously placed upon it by the Court of Criminal Appeal, acknowledging that this interpretation was clearly correct for the purposes of the appeal. However, the applicant argued that, as a matter of elementary fairness, an accused person is entitled to know the maximum sentence they face. The applicant asserted that at first instance, he had a right to know whether the prosecution was asserting a maximum sentence of five years under paragraph (c) or one year under paragraph (b) of the relevant section. The applicant's contention was that the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision, by not allowing him to go on oath to claim the drugs were for his own use, compounded the issue.