See full judgment: Austlii.
The offender was sentenced following a plea of guilty to 1 count of importing a marketable quantity of a border-controlled drug, contrary to ss 307.2(1) and 11.2A(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Offending related to 565.9 grams of pure cocaine. A further drug importation offence was taken into account under s 16BA. Original sentence imposed 6 years of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years. Offender appealed on the ground that the sentencing judge erred in excluding their disadvantaged childhood as a consideration mitigating the sentence or justifying leniency.
Antecedents: No submission on behalf of offender was squarely made to the sentencing judge that they would make a finding that the offender’s moral culpability was reduced because of their childhood adversity; the focus of the submissions insofar as offender’s subjective case was concerned was as to the relevance of their anxiety and stress leading to cocaine addiction at the time of the offending such that the motive for the offending was more nuanced than simply being that of greed. To the extent that it is submitted that the sentencing judge should have made a finding that offender’s moral culpability was reduced even though such a submission was not squarely put to them, this is not a case where such a finding was so obvious that error is disclosed despite the submission not having been put.
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
