R v Leathers

The applicant appealed against the sentence imposed upon him by the County Court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant, along with his de facto partner, was involved in the trafficking of cannabis as street-level dealers. The applicant was found to have acquired drugs from a wholesaler who supplied up to fourteen other dealers, although he operated independently of these other dealers. The primary motivation for his drug trafficking was to satisfy his partner’s addiction. The applicant pleaded guilty to a single count of unlawfully trafficking a dangerous drug and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, to be suspended after six months, with an operational period of three years.

The court was required to determine whether the parity principle should be extended to consider the sentences of other offenders who acquired drugs from the same wholesaler. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the learned sentencing judge adequately weighed the applicant's lack of re-offending during the period between his arrest and sentencing, the absence of a commercial element in his offending, and the need for specific and general deterrence. The court also had to evaluate whether the six months' actual period of imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

The court considered that the parity principle does not necessarily extend to include co-offenders who acquire drugs from the same wholesaler, particularly when their roles and contributions to the crime differ significantly. The court found that the sentencing judge had given adequate consideration to the factors mitigating the applicant’s culpability, including his lack of re-offending and the personal nature of his drug trafficking. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and the considerations of deterrence did not necessitate a sentence of imprisonment. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.