R v Albert

In the case of R v Albert, the defendant pleaded guilty to supplying the class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The facts of the case, as outlined by the court, were not in dispute. The defendant's role involved purchasing methamphetamine from an associate and then reselling it to others, including family members, associates, and an undercover police officer. The court determined that the defendant's supply of methamphetamine fell within the middle to lower range of the guideline judgement for such offences. The legal issues in this case included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, adjusting the starting point based on personal circumstances, and deciding the discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The court adopted a three-stage approach to sentencing, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The starting point was set at four and a half years imprisonment, reduced by 15 per cent for the defendant's efforts at rehabilitation and by a further 4 months for time spent on restrictive bail. The final issue was the discount for the defendant's guilty plea, which resulted in a sentence of two years and nine months imprisonment.

The court sentenced Arnold Albert to two years and nine months imprisonment for supplying the class A controlled drug methamphetamine. The sentence was based on a starting point of four and a half years imprisonment, reduced by 15 per cent for the defendant's efforts at rehabilitation and by a further 4 months for time spent on restrictive bail. The court also allowed a 20 per cent discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The defendant will be eligible for parole after serving a third of his sentence, and the Parole Board will consider his efforts at rehabilitation when making its decision.