R v Turner

[2016] SASCFC 61

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Grounds for interference
5. › Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate
6. › Whether starting point of four years for street-level MDMA trafficking manifestly excessive
7. › Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), s 32(3), s 44
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing orders
4. › Suspended sentence of imprisonment
5. › Good reason to suspend
6. › Whether sentencing judge erred in declining to suspend sentence
7. › Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), s 18A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing procedure
4. › Approach to sentencing process
5. › Matters to be considered
6. › Drug trafficking
7. › Street-level dealing in MDMA (ecstasy)
8. › Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), s 44
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Standard of appellate review
5. › Discretionary decisions
6. › Application of [name withheld] v The King principles to decision not to suspend sentence

Quick Take

A starting point of four years' imprisonment is at the lower end of the range for street-level trafficking in MDMA in the context of a course of commercial trading. The decision in R v Weatherill [2015] SASCFC 113 does not revise downwards the sentencing range for street traders of ecstasy but reflects strongly mitigating personal circumstances. The discretion to suspend or not suspend a sentence is reviewable only on [name withheld] v The King principles.