Ross v The Queen

The appellant, Ross, was convicted of trafficking methylamphetamine, reckless conduct endangering serious injury and associated charges. He was sentenced to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 months. Ross appealed the sentence, contending that the primary judge erred in failing to find that he experienced profound childhood deprivation. He argued that this deprived him of the capacity to exercise self-control and thus reduced his moral culpability. The central legal issues were whether the primary judge erred in not considering the mitigating factor of profound childhood deprivation, and if this error impacted the overall assessment of Ross's culpability and the sentence imposed.

The court examined the principles in Bugmy v The Queen and Veen v The Queen, which require consideration of mitigating factors such as childhood deprivation in sentencing. The court held that the primary judge did consider the appellant’s background, including his troubled upbringing, and appropriately weighed these factors against the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the primary judge did not err in not attributing the sentence to profound childhood deprivation, as there was no clear evidence that Ross’s background significantly impaired his moral culpability. The court held that the sentence was within the appropriate range, taking into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

The appeal was dismissed. The original sentence of 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 months was upheld. The court concluded that the primary judge had correctly exercised their discretion in sentencing, and there was no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed.