R v Sullivan

In the case of R v Sullivan, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to trafficking in 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant had previously been convicted and sentenced by the District Court of New South Wales for manufacturing a commercial quantity of MDMA. The primary judge in the Supreme Court considered the applicant's preparatory conduct, including the acquisition of equipment and chemicals and the production of 1400ml of isosafrole, when imposing the sentence. The central issue in this appeal was whether the primary judge erred in sentencing the applicant based on facts attributable to the production of the drug and whether the sentencing discretion miscarried.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the acts preparatory to the manufacturing of dangerous drugs constituted trafficking in such drugs and whether the primary judge sufficiently credited the applicant's pre-sentence custody. The Court found that the primary judge had misapprehended the law in considering the preparatory conduct as part of the trafficking offence. Additionally, the Court determined that the primary judge did not sufficiently credit the applicant's pre-sentence custody, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of six and a half years imprisonment, with parole eligibility after two and a half years.

In summary, the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal against the sentence, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales. The new sentence comprised six and a half years imprisonment, with the applicant being eligible for parole after serving two and a half years.