R v Day

The case of R v Day involved the appellant, who had a history of drug-related and other offences. The appellant pleaded guilty to participating in the manufacture of methylamphetamine and committed further offences of possessing a controlled substance for sale. The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including whether the combined effect of the sentences was manifestly excessive, whether the unlawful conduct of the police during the arrest justified a reduction in sentence, whether the sentencing judge failed to give a sufficient discount in relation to the plea of guilty, and whether the sentences for the latter offences should be served concurrently. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence should be reduced on the basis of the principle of totality.

The court held that the unlawful and improper conduct of the police alone would rarely justify a reduction in what would otherwise be an appropriate sentence. The court emphasised that whether the fact of fear or intimidation has played a part in the commission of offences should result in a reduction in penalty must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The court also noted that where there are two or more incursions into criminal conduct, consecutive sentences will generally be appropriate. The appeal was allowed only in relation to the latter offences, namely, possessing a controlled substance for sale. The sentence was reduced on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, and the sentence was made cumulative upon the sentence for the earlier offending.

In summary, the court allowed the appeal in relation to the 2007 offences, reducing the starting point for the 2007 offences to seven years’ imprisonment and the sentence to five years’ imprisonment, having regard to the pleas of guilty. The sentence was directed to be cumulative upon the sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment for the 2005 offending, making a total of seven years and six months’ imprisonment. This total was to be served cumulatively upon the unexpired period of one year and ten days’ imprisonment that the appellant was required to serve, having breached his parole, resulting in a total of eight years, six months and ten days’ imprisonment, commencing on 18 August 2008. The non-parole period was fixed at five years’ imprisonment, also commencing on 18 August 2008.