R v Keut

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against a sentence imposed on the respondent, Keut, by a lower court. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the sentence for drug trafficking offences involving MDMA (ecstasy).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly inadequate, and if so, what a just sentence should be. This involved considering the respondent's circumstances, his antecedent history, and relevant sentencing principles, particularly those articulated in *R v Young*.

The Court found that the respondent's circumstances did not warrant a sentence outside the range established in *R v Young*, concluding that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court reasoned that the respondent's personal history, while presenting some challenges, did not mitigate the seriousness of the drug trafficking offences to the extent that the original sentence reflected. The Court set aside the original sentence.

The Court imposed a head sentence of two years, 11 months, and 23 days, with a 25 per cent discount for the guilty plea and reductions for time already spent in custody. This sentence was to operate from 11 January 2021, and a non-parole period of one year and six months was fixed.