Vasic v the Queen

Vasic, the appellant, applied for special leave to appeal against his sentence of 21 years' imprisonment, imposed after he was found guilty of two drug trafficking offences. The High Court was asked to determine whether the sentence imposed on the second count was manifestly excessive. The first count related to the trafficking of a large commercial quantity of MDMA in 2005, and the second related to the trafficking of a large commercial quantity of cocaine in 2009, while the applicant was on bail for the first offence. The applicant was sentenced as a serious drug offender for both counts. The applicant argued that the 12-year sentence imposed for the second count was manifestly excessive, given the relatively low quantity of cocaine involved. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence.

The Court considered the principles governing the assessment of manifest excessivity in sentencing. It noted that the appellant had a history of drug trafficking and had committed the second offence while on bail for the first offence. The Court held that the sentence imposed for the second count was not manifestly excessive. It found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the appellant's history of drug trafficking. The Court also noted that the appellant had received a very early plea of guilty, which was reflected in the sentence. The Court refused the application for special leave to appeal, holding that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offences committed.

The Court noted that the appellant had been sentenced as a serious drug offender, and that the sentence imposed for the second count was not manifestly excessive. It found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the appellant's history of drug trafficking. The Court also noted that the appellant had received a very early plea of guilty, which was reflected in the sentence. The Court held that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offences committed. The application for special leave to appeal was refused.