The purity of a prohibited drug remains a relevant sentencing consideration under s 21A(1)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act notwithstanding s 4 of the DMT Act, but the weight to be given to purity is a matter for the sentencing judge, and an offender who asserts low purity bears the evidentiary burden of establishing what constitutes standard purity for the drug in question. Parity considerations may warrant amelioration of sentence where co-offenders with similar participation face dramatically different charges due to prosecutorial decisions, even though such decisions are ordinarily beyond the court's reach. The question whether standard non-parole periods apply to conspiracy offences under s 26 of the DMT Act remains unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.