Quick v The Queen

In *Quick v The Queen*, the Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal, considered an appeal against a sentence imposed on the appellant for drug trafficking offences involving cannabis. The appeal was brought on the sole ground of manifest excess.

The Court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, meaning it was unreasonable or plainly unjust after considering all relevant sentencing circumstances. This involved assessing the maximum penalty for the offence, the customary range of sentences for similar offences, the seriousness of the appellant's conduct, and the appellant's personal circumstances. The Court noted that appellate intervention on the ground of manifest excess is warranted only where the sentence imposed is so markedly different from other sentences imposed in comparable cases that it suggests a misapplication of sentencing principles, even if the specific error is not apparent.

The Court reiterated the principles for determining manifest excess, drawing on established High Court authority. It explained that a finding of manifest excess does not necessarily require the identification of a specific error of reasoning or an insufficient weighting of individual sentencing factors. Instead, it is a conclusion reached when, after considering all relevant factors, the sentence is found to be unreasonable or plainly unjust. The Court referred to its own previous observations in *Hilfy v The Queen* and the High Court's guidance in *Hili v The Queen* and *Wong*. The Court indicated that if the sentence imposed is so far outside the available range that error must be inferred, intervention may be justified.