Sweetman v Tasmania

[2016] TASCCA 5

[2016] TASCCA 5

COURT:        SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION:                Sweetman v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 5

PARTIES:  SWEETMAN, Leigh Anthony
  v

STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  2542/2015
DELIVERED ON:  31 March 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  29 February 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood, Estcourt and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Plea of guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance – Whether sentence of 10 months' imprisonment with 7 months suspended manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K Edwards
             Respondent:  A Shand
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:  [2016] TASCCA 5
Number of paragraphs:  55

Serial No 5/2016

File No 2542/2015

LEIGH ANTHONY SWEETMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
ESTCOURT J
PEARCE J
31 March 2016

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 5/2016

File No 2542/2015

LEIGH ANTHONY SWEETMAN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
31 March 2016

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance.  Tennent J imposed a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment, with 3 months to be served.  The balance of 7 months was suspended subject to a condition that for a period of 2 years from his release the appellant not commit any crime punishable by imprisonment.  The ground of appeal is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant is aggrieved about the length of the sentence and particularly, that the sentence of imprisonment was not wholly suspended. 

2. On 29 February 2016, this Court dismissed the appeal, with reasons to be published at a later date.  These are my reasons for joining in the order made.  The relevant facts of this case, the matters in mitigation and the sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge are set out in the reasons of Estcourt and Pearce JJ and I see no need to repeat them. 

3. The particulars of the charge of trafficking are that on or about 10 March 2015 the appellant trafficked in a controlled substance, namely cannabis.  The appellant was sentenced on the basis, accepted by the Crown, that he trafficked in cannabis by having possession of cannabis and 113 cannabis plants with the intention of bartering or exchanging some of the cannabis once harvested.

4. The crime of trafficking extends to this kind of conduct, even though there had not been any sale transactions, and even though it was not intended that money would change hands.  Having possession of a controlled substance, with the intention of selling it, is trafficking (s 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001).  "Sell" is widely defined and includes to "barter or exchange".  The definition of "controlled substance" includes cannabis plants, as well as cannabis. 

5. It was submitted for the appellant that the following features of his…