Umgeher-Rhodes v State of Tasmania

Umgeher-Rhodes appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a controlled substance, specifically engaging in an organised drug business involving the importation and sale of a significant quantity of methylamphetamine. A second count of trafficking in methylamphetamine, committed approximately 12 months later while the appellant was on bail for the first offence, and several summary offences also proceeded to plea. The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.

The appeal raised the question of whether the global sentence was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying interference by the appellate court. A related issue was whether the sentence imposed for the summary offences, which carried a maximum statutory penalty of a fine, was appropriate within the context of the global sentence for the more serious trafficking charges.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, constituted by Wood and Jago JJ and Martin AJ, found that the global sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years was not manifestly excessive, given the gravity of the organised drug trafficking offences, including importation and commercial sale of methylamphetamine, and the commission of a further trafficking offence while on bail. However, the Court allowed the appeal to a limited extent, specifically to correct the sentence concerning the summary offences. The Court determined that imposing a custodial sentence for these offences, which had a maximum penalty of a fine, was inappropriate and inconsistent with the sentencing principles applied to the trafficking charges.

The Court ordered that the sentence for the summary offences be varied to a fine. The custodial sentence and non-parole period for the trafficking offences were otherwise upheld.