In sentencing for quantity-based drug trafficking offences, the purity of the drug is only relevant where it is de minimis or minuscule; ordinary low purity does not bear on the objective gravity of the offence. An offender seeking to rely on automatic forfeiture as mitigation under s 5(2A)(ab) of the Sentencing Act 1991 must adduce direct evidence establishing lawful acquisition of the property — hearsay assertions through a solicitor's affidavit are insufficient. Consent to forfeiture may be considered as evidence of remorse under s 5(2B), but the inability to establish lawful acquisition of the property undermines that inference. Agreements between prosecution and defence as to sentencing submissions do not constrain the sentencing judge.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.