R v HEY

The appellant, R v HEY, appealed against sentences imposed by a sentencing judge for two counts of trafficking in a controlled drug, specifically methylamphetamine. The first offence involved 35 tablets, for which the appellant received a three-year sentence. The second offence, committed while on bail for the first, involved 798 tablets totalling 197.15g, for which the sentencing judge set a starting point of eight years, reduced to six years for a guilty plea. The sentences were to be served cumulatively, resulting in a total head sentence of nine years with a five-year non-parole period. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentences imposed for each offence, and the cumulative total, were manifestly excessive. Specifically, the court considered whether the sentencing judge had given due regard to the parity principle in relation to an acquaintance who received a lesser sentence for a coincidentally timed arrest, and whether the principle of totality had been adequately applied to the overall sentence.

The Full Court allowed the appeal in part. It found that the sentence for the first offence was not manifestly excessive and that the parity principle did not apply as the acquaintance was not a co-offender. However, the court determined that the sentence for the second offence was manifestly excessive, noting that a starting point of eight years for trafficking nearly 200g of methylamphetamine left insufficient scope for offenders dealing with larger quantities, given the maximum penalty of 10 years. The court resentenced the appellant on the second offence to five years imprisonment, making it cumulative on the three-year sentence for the first offence, resulting in a total head sentence of eight years with a non-parole period of four years.