R v NICHOLLS

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, who had been convicted after a trial of trafficking in methylamphetamine and three counts of possessing a prescription drug. The sentencing judge had also taken into account two further offences, for which the appellant had pleaded guilty: possessing articles with intent to commit an offence and unlawful interference with a motor vehicle. The appeal was heard by Sulan, Anderson and Peek JJ.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to consider the limited commercial value of the drugs, and in taking into account that the prescription drugs were for sale. The appellant argued that the head sentence of three years, eight months and 21 days' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and ten months, was too severe, particularly in relation to the drug offences.

The court considered the appellant's submissions regarding the value of the drugs and the alleged error in treating the prescription drugs as being for sale. The appellant had been found in possession of 9.15 grams of methylamphetamine paste (0.26 grams pure) and several prescription tablets, along with items indicative of drug dealing, such as scales and resealable bags. The jury had rejected his explanations for possessing these items. The court noted the appellant's extensive criminal history, including dishonesty and motor vehicle offences, and a significant prior custodial sentence, although he had no prior drug convictions. The court also acknowledged his numerous health issues, which could be managed in custody.

The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's prior convictions, the nature of the offences, and the limited commercial value of the methylamphetamine. The court also found no error in the judge's consideration of the prescription drugs as being for sale, given the context of their discovery alongside the methylamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The head sentence and non-parole period were therefore upheld.