Ibrahim v The Queen

[2013] VSCA 227

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Drug offences
4. › Trafficking in large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine
5. › Relevance of purity of drug to sentencing
6. › Whether purity was de minimis
7. › Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 14(1), 16(3C)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Cumulation of sentences
4. › Offence committed while on bail
5. › Totality principle
6. › Whether greater concurrency required
7. › Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 16(3C)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal
4. › Manifest excess
5. › Whether total effective sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive

Quick Take

Drug purity ranging from 1.6% to 20% (around street level) is not de minimis and does not constitute a significant mitigating factor in sentencing for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The de minimis purity exception identified in Trajkovski and Kapkidis is confined to truly miniscule purity levels such as 0.05%.