R v Baradel

The appellant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to four drug offences, including trafficking in methylamphetamine, producing methylamphetamine, and possessing things used in connection with producing a dangerous drug. He was sentenced to a total of five years and six months imprisonment, with concurrent terms for the other offences. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, and sought to adduce an affidavit from his co-offender to explain how he became involved in the offending. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge should have considered this evidence, and that it would have resulted in a reduced non-parole period.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in setting the starting point for the head sentence at six years, and whether the judge had considered all relevant mitigating factors. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether the appellant was entitled to adduce the affidavit as part of his appeal. The court needed to consider whether the affidavit was fresh evidence, and whether it should be received in any event.

The court found that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant mitigating factors and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the affidavit was not fresh evidence, and that it did not demonstrate that the appellant had been influenced by the co-offender to the extent that it would have affected the sentence. The court found that the appellant had not established any grounds for interference with the sentence, and refused the application for leave to appeal.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.