R v Kijurina

The case of R v Kijurina involved the Crown appealing against a sentence given to the respondent, Kijurina, who had been found guilty of two counts of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the Crown argued that the non-custodial sentence given by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The appeal raised questions regarding the trial judge's findings of fact, whether he had misdirected himself in his considerations, and if he had failed to properly evaluate the terms of the drug transactions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the findings of fact made by the trial judge were open to him, if the judge had misdirected himself in his sentencing considerations, and whether the judge had failed to properly assess the gravity of the drug transactions. The appeal also questioned whether the non-custodial sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the court should exercise its residual discretion in the matter. The objective seriousness of drug "rip-offs" and the need for specific and general deterrence were also considered by the court.

The court held that the findings of fact made by the trial judge were open to him and that he had not misdirected himself. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that the need for specific and general deterrence had not been properly considered by the trial judge. The court also found that the extraordinary delay in the sentencing proceedings warranted the exercise of the residual discretion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for re-sentencing. The final orders included the remission of the matter to the trial judge for re-sentencing, taking into account the appropriate considerations of specific and general deterrence.