Pittman v The Queen

The applicant, Pittman, appealed against his sentence for the unlawful possession of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine. The dispute centred on the sentencing judge's assessment of the applicant's commercial involvement and the rejection of his evidence regarding his intentions and the financial aspects of his drug dealings. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, comprising Riley CJ, Barr and Hiley JJ.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in rejecting the applicant's evidence concerning the quantity of drugs intended for personal use, the prices paid and received, and the overall commerciality of his operation. The Court was also required to consider whether the head sentence imposed and the period of suspension were manifestly excessive, given the applicant's admitted drug dependency and his claims of intending to subsidise his habit through sales.

The Court upheld the sentencing judge's rejection of the applicant's evidence, finding it riddled with evasions and inconsistencies. The applicant's explanation for possessing a large quantity of methamphetamine, including his purported intention to consume two-thirds and sell the remainder to subsidise his habit, was found to be implausible, particularly when contrasted with the police estimate of the drug's value and the applicant's stated selling prices. The Court applied the principles of sentencing for drug offences, noting the presumption of intention to supply for commercial gain under the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1990* (NT) and finding that this presumption had not been rebutted. The Court concluded that the applicant was involved in a significant commercial operation with consequent adverse effects on the community, and that he displayed no true remorse.

The Court found that the head sentence and the period to be served before suspension were comfortably within the available sentencing range and were not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.