R v TAS

The case before the court involved an applicant who had pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and to being part of a criminal organisation. The applicant had also cooperated with authorities and given an undertaking to cooperate in the future. The applicant was sentenced in open court and an indicative sentence was given in closed court, following the procedure in section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The court had to decide whether the indicative sentence must include the “mandatory component” required by section 161R and whether section 161S wholly displaces the operation of section 161R. The court also had to consider whether the ultimate sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the applicant's sentence must be reduced to avoid an unacceptable disparity with the sentence subsequently imposed upon a co-offender whose offending was more serious. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in holding that a partial indemnity against prosecution was a significant benefit to the applicant, so as to lessen the credit which should be given to his undertaking to cooperate. The court found that the applicant's cooperation and undertaking to cooperate in the future were relevant factors that should be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence.

The court concluded that the applicant's sentence should be reduced to a term of nine years, with parole eligibility after six years. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The court varied the sentence imposed for count one on the indictment, by substituting a term of nine years’ imprisonment, setting aside the declaration of the commission of a serious violent offence, and ordering that the applicant be eligible for parole on 10 June 2025.