A jury's acquittal on a more serious drug trafficking charge does not compel a sentencing judge to accept the offender's evidence about their role; the acquittal may simply reflect the jury's doubt about the offender's knowledge of quantity. Assertions that low drug purity is a mitigating factor must be supported by evidence; unsupported assertions are speculative and a sentencing judge is entitled to decline to act on them. In sentencing for drug offences, the label applied to the offender's role (e.g., 'principal' vs 'courier') is less important than the factual findings about the offender's actual involvement.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.