R v DONJERKOVIC

The applicant sought permission to appeal against a sentence imposed by a sentencing judge for five offences under the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). The applicant had pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis plants, possessing related equipment, and trafficking cocaine. The sentencing judge imposed an immediate custodial sentence of 9 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months, after allowing a 20 per cent discount for the guilty plea, resulting in a starting point of approximately 12 years and 1 month.

The applicant raised several grounds for appeal, including whether the sentencing judge erred by basing the sentence on a mistaken factual basis due to an error in the agreed facts, whether the principle of totality was misapplied, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether a disparity between his sentence and that of a co-offender justified interference by the appellate court. The applicant contended that the starting point of 12 years was too high and that the disparity with the co-offender's sentence created a justifiable sense of grievance.

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal on all grounds. It found that the alleged factual mistake was not fundamental and would not have altered the sentence. The court also determined that the co-offender's sentence was distinguishable and that the applicant's sentence was appropriate in the circumstances. Consequently, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed.