R v Nicholls

[2011] SASCFC 81

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Grounds for interference
5. › Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate
6. › Drug trafficking
7. › Low-level street dealer
8. › Whether sentence within range
1. Criminal Law
2. › Particular offences
3. › Drug offences
4. › Trafficking in methylamphetamine
5. › Relevance of purity of drug to sentencing
6. › Inference as to level within drug hierarchy
7. › Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), s 32(3)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Particular offences
3. › Drug offences
4. › Possession of prescription drugs
5. › Whether sentencing judge entitled to have regard to black market value
6. › Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), s 18(3)

Quick Take

A sentence of three years' imprisonment is within range for a low-level street dealer trafficking in methylamphetamine of low purity (2-4%). The purity of a drug is relevant to inferring the offender's level within the drug distribution hierarchy, and low purity supports characterisation as a low-level dealer.

Case Details

Citation[2011] SASCFC 81

CourtSASCFC

JurisdictionSouth Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

Cited by1

2011R v PaulySASCFC 113

Relies on4

2009R v DaySASC 84
2002R v MahasayWASCA 336
2002Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Marker v The QueenWASCA 282
2002Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Vogel v The QueenWASCA 261

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in