R v CHAN

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the appellant, Mr Chan, who had pleaded guilty to possession of methylamphetamine with intent to supply and trafficking in ecstasy. The sentencing judge imposed a head sentence of 20 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months, after applying reductions. The appellant argued that the initial starting point for the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the judge erred in failing to suspend the sentence.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge erred in setting a starting point for the sentence that was too high, and whether the judge was wrong to refuse to suspend the sentence. These issues were to be determined in light of the appellant's offending, which included committing the trafficking offence whilst on bail for the possession offence, and multiple breaches of home detention bail due to positive drug tests.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Stanley, Bampton and Lovell JJ, found that the sentencing judge had regard to all relevant matters when exercising her discretion not to suspend the sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was within the available range for such drug offending and that the judge's decision not to suspend the sentence was a proper exercise of discretion. No error or miscarriage of justice was identified.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court of Appeal upholding the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.