R v Mustac

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) sought permission to appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Mr Mustac, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabis. The DPP contended that the sentence of three years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months, which included a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea, was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by Kourakis CJ, Sulan and Stanley JJ.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, whether the discount for the guilty plea was excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in their approach to fact-finding regarding the respondent's alleged failure to make admissions and the circumstances of the offending, specifically concerning potential threats. The DPP also argued that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the seriousness of the offence and the need for general and personal deterrence.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding the original sentence to be manifestly inadequate. Their Honours determined that the offending constituted a high-level commercial enterprise, placing it within the most serious category of drug trafficking. This conclusion was informed by the significant quantity and value of the cannabis, the respondent's prior conviction for similar offending, and the fact that he was not a novice or low-level dealer. The court also found the discount for the guilty plea to be excessive, noting the respondent's failure to assist police in locating the secret compartment and his unreasonable failure to make admissions in response to a Notice to Admit. The court also identified an error in the sentencing judge's approach to fact-finding concerning whether the respondent had acted under threats.

Consequently, the sentence imposed by the trial judge was set aside. The Full Court imposed a new sentence of seven years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. The court dismissed the ground of appeal relating to a background of trading cannabis, as the DPP failed to prove this element.