R v Mangelsdorf

The Full Court of the Criminal Court of Appeal of South Australia heard three applications for leave to appeal against sentences imposed by the District Court for drug-related offences. The Director of Public Prosecutions applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on Mr Mangelsdorf, Mr Perry, and Mr Richards. The Court granted leave to appeal in all three cases. The Court found the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and constituted an error in principle, warranting intervention by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court imposed new sentences in each case. The Court found that the sentence imposed on Mr Mangelsdorf for possession of heroin for sale was manifestly inadequate. The sentence was 18 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months. The sentence was suspended. The Court found that a sentence of less than 4 years' imprisonment could not be justified. The Court imposed a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months, and revoked the order for suspension. The Court found that the sentence imposed on Mr Perry for conspiracy to trade in LSD was manifestly inadequate. The sentence was six months' imprisonment, which was suspended upon Mr Perry entering into a recognisance for the amount of $100 to be of good behaviour for twelve months. The Court found that a sentence of 2 years 6 months' imprisonment was the lowest sentence that could properly be imposed in this case. The Court imposed a sentence of 2 years 6 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year, and ordered that the sentence be suspended upon Mr Perry entering into a recognisance for the amount of $100 to be of good behaviour for two years, and during the period of 18 months from entry into the bond Mr Perry must perform 160 hours of community service. The Court found that the sentence imposed on Mr Richards for possession of cannabis for sale was manifestly inadequate. The sentence was two years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of sixteen months. The sentence was suspended. The Court found that a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment was appropriate. The Court imposed a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years, and revoked the order for suspension.