R v MCGLYNN

The appellant, R v MCGLYNN, appealed against a sentence imposed by the District Court on 9 March 2017. The appellant had been convicted of one count of trafficking a controlled drug and one count of supplying a prescription medication. The sentencing judge imposed a single sentence of 19 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 months.

The appeal raised two primary grounds: firstly, whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive, and secondly, whether the sentencing judge had erred in fact in their determination of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, including the limited grounds upon which an appellate court will interfere with a sentencing decision. The court examined the facts and circumstances of the offending, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the sentencing judge's reasons for imposing the particular sentence. The court applied established legal principles relating to the assessment of appropriate sentences for drug trafficking and supply offences, considering factors such as the quantity and nature of the drugs, the appellant's role in the offending, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive and that no error of fact had been established.