The case confirms that in drug possession cases based on circumstantial evidence, a jury's finding of guilt on one count of a joint drug-dealing enterprise may be used as a circumstance supporting guilt on other counts relating to drugs found at a shared residence, even absent DNA or fingerprint evidence. A sentence of 9 years' imprisonment for possession of approximately 495g of methylamphetamine at 67-71% purity with intent to supply, where the offender was a key participant in a commercial drug-dealing enterprise, was within the appropriate range. Significant differences in role, culpability, personal circumstances and mitigating factors between co-offenders justify substantial sentencing disparity without infringing the parity principle.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.