R v Evelyn

Evelyn appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. He had pled guilty to possessing methylamphetamine for commercial purposes and contravening a magistrate’s order. The court sentenced him to nine years for the commercial possession offence, and three months for contravening the magistrate's order, to run concurrently. The applicant had a history of drug and fraud-related offences and committed the current offences while on parole.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence should be set by reference to the total effective sentence he would serve, rather than by reference to the one-third mark of the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The court needed to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed.

The court noted that the applicant's criminal history was extensive and that the current offences were committed while he was on parole. The court considered that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences and that the applicant's criminal history was a relevant consideration. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the parole eligibility date was properly set by reference to the one-third mark of the sentence imposed and not by reference to the total effective sentence the applicant would serve.