R v French

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the case of R v French revolved around the sentencing of Brett Matthew French, who was found guilty of trafficking in a controlled drug, specifically methylamphetamine, on 4 January 2021. The maximum penalty for this offence was imprisonment for 10 years, a fine of $160,000, or both. French, who had a history of substance abuse and multiple previous convictions for drug-related offences, breached three good behaviour orders imposed by the Magistrates Court during the commission of this offence. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence, considering the objective seriousness of the offence, the offender’s role, the quantity and purity of the drug, and the subjective features of the offender, including his criminal history and personal circumstances.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the trafficking offence, considering both the objective and subjective factors. The court had to assess the role of the offender within the drug trafficking operation, the quantity and purity of the drug involved, and the offender's personal history and circumstances. The court also needed to consider the breaches of good behaviour orders and their implications for sentencing. The court considered the sentencing principles relevant to drug offenders, the nature of the breach offences, and the appropriate starting point for the sentence, applying statutory provisions and relevant case law.

The court found that the operation was not unsophisticated, as evidenced by the CCTV system and the presence of "cutting agents" and chemicals. French was characterised as a low to mid-level dealer, and the total weight of the drug was approximately 184 grams, with a significant portion being low in concentration due to being "cut." The subjective features included French's history of substance abuse, his motivation to support his drug habit and meet living expenses, and his limited engagement with pro-social peers and activities. The court considered the offender’s age, criminal history, family background, and current employment situation. The court concluded that the sentencing purposes of adequate punishment, general deterrence, personal deterrence, and protection of the community were prominent.

After considering all the factors, the court determined that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was 32 months' imprisonment. A 25% discount was applied pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), resulting in a sentence of two years' imprisonment. The court set a nonparole period of 13 months, considering French’s lack of prior incarceration and the potential for rehabilitation during imprisonment. The court also addressed the breach of good behaviour orders, imposing a two-month sentence for the most significant breach, which had already expired. The final orders included a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for the principal offence, with a nonparole period of 13 months.