The case confirms that a sentencing judge does not err by looking for comparable sentences relating to the same drug when sentencing for Commonwealth drug importation offences, provided the judge also considers the quantity-based legislative scheme as required by Adams v The Queen. A single comparable case may be used as a yardstick without constituting error, though reliance on a single case as the sole determinant of the sentencing range may be problematic. The majority's refusal to interfere with the sentences illustrates the high threshold for Crown sentence appeals, even where the appellate court considers the sentences lenient.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.