A sentencing judge may not adopt a predetermined general approach of refusing to accept assertions from the Bar table or the contents of psychological reports about an offender's drug addiction contributing to offending in the absence of 'cogent admissible evidence'. Such a predetermined approach is contrary to established sentencing practice and productive of error. If the absence of drug addiction is to be used adversely to the offender to support a finding that trafficking was motivated solely by greed, proof of its absence is required to the criminal standard.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.