R v Bechara

This case concerned an appeal against a sentence and a declaration made under section 20B of the *Sentencing Act* (SA) concerning the appellant, who was convicted of serious drug trafficking offences. The sentencing judge had declared the appellant a serious repeat offender and imposed a sentence of 22 years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, noting that the appellant had committed further serious drug offences while on parole and then while on bail for those offences. The offences involved large quantities of drugs and money, and a police task force was established to investigate.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the sentencing judge erred in making the serious repeat offender declaration and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. Specifically, the court considered whether the judge had properly applied the criteria in section 20B(3)(b) of the *Sentencing Act*, which requires the court to be of the opinion that the offender's history of offending warrants a particularly severe sentence in order to protect the community. The court also considered the impact of a conceded error regarding the applicable maximum penalty on the declaration and the sentence.

The court reasoned that while the appellant's history of offending, including committing offences while on parole and bail, was serious, the sentencing judge had failed to adequately address the specific condition in section 20B(3)(b) of the *Sentencing Act* regarding the necessity of a particularly severe sentence for community protection. The court also noted that the serious repeat offender declaration, once made, has an independent existence, but in this instance, the sentence under appeal was inextricably linked to the declaration. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the original sentence and the section 20B declaration.

The Full Court imposed a new sentence of 23 years, one month, and five days imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 17 years and three months. This adjustment was made after setting aside the serious repeat offender declaration, meaning the sentence no longer had to comply with the four-fifths minimum non-parole period requirement of section 20BA(1)(b) of the *Sentencing Act*. The court determined that a non-parole period of three-quarters of the total head sentence was appropriate, taking into account the appellant's poor prospects of rehabilitation but also his advanced age upon eventual release.