R v Kikidis

The appeal in *R v Kikidis* concerned a challenge to the sentence imposed on the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking methylamphetamine, contrary to section 32(3) of the *Controlled Substances Act 1984*. The second offence was committed while the appellant was on bail for the first. An initial application to withdraw the guilty plea to the first offence was subsequently withdrawn. The appellant was sentenced to 3 years and 7 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 months, and received no reduction in sentence for her guilty plea.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant should have received a reduction in her sentence for pleading guilty to the first offence, whether fresh psychological evidence should be admitted on appeal, whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to suspend the sentence, whether an indication had been given that the sentence would be suspended, and whether insufficient regard had been paid to the impact of the sentence on the appellant's children.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal. The court reasoned that the sentencing judge had reasonably refused to reduce the sentence, given the circumstances surrounding the appellant's plea of guilt. The fresh evidence sought to be admitted was deemed unlikely to have added anything material to the information already before the sentencing judge. Furthermore, the court found that no indication had been given by the sentencing judge that the sentence would be suspended. Finally, the court concluded that the sentencing judge had indeed taken the welfare of the appellant's children into account by fixing a comparatively low non-parole period.