R v Leathley

This matter concerned an application for permission to appeal against sentence by the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of cultivating controlled plants for sale and two counts of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug. The applicant's offending occurred in breach of a previously imposed suspended sentence of imprisonment. The District Court initially imposed a global sentence of six years' imprisonment, activating the suspended sentence. Following a successful Crown appeal, the applicant was re-sentenced to a total of seven years and three months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years.

The applicant argued that the re-sentencing was manifestly excessive because it was greater than the initial sentence, and that it failed to have regard to the principle of fairness underlying the doctrine of double jeopardy. The court was therefore required to determine whether the increased sentence imposed on re-sentencing was manifestly excessive, and whether it offended the principle of double jeopardy.

The court reasoned that the policy grounds underpinning the principle that a defendant should not be deterred from exercising their right of appeal or disadvantaged by doing so, are not relevant to a successful prosecution appeal. The court concluded that permission to appeal should be granted, but the appeal itself should be dismissed.