Gee, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple drug offences on two indictments. On 13 September 2023 the Appellant pleaded guilty to offences on the first indictment (the "single indictment") and on 28 February 2024 pleaded guilty to further offences on the second indictment (the "conspiracy indictment"), with three counts on the conspiracy indictment ordered to lie on the file. On 6 September 2024 Judge Cartin imposed an overall sentence of 11 years' imprisonment calculated by imposing concurrent terms on the conspiracy counts and consecutive concurrent terms on the single-indictment counts, resulting in the stated total. A co-defendant (the Defendant) was tried, convicted on some counts and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The Appellant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Recorder erred in assessing the Appellant's culpability for a leading role in the conspiracy and thereby erred in sentence.
2. Whether the Recorder misapplied the harm assessment or created an unjustifiable disparity between the Appellant and the Defendant.
3. Whether the Recorder failed adequately to consider the Appellant's mental health mitigation.
4. Whether the Recorder failed to allow an appropriate reduction in sentence for the Appellant's assistance to the police.
5. Whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, having regard to sentencing guidelines, guilty plea credit and the principle of totality.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant (through Attorney Price) submitted that the Recorder should have placed the Appellant at the lower end of culpability for a leading role because the conspiracy could not have operated without the Defendant's technical skill and control.
• It was submitted that the Recorder erred in distinguishing the Defendant as to harm and that the Defendant's personal drug consumption made him less likely to achieve financial gain, a rationale said to be wrongly applied.
• The Appellant argued the Recorder failed to give sufficient weight to the Appellant's mental health difficulties (diagnosed ADHD and psychological reports).
• The Appellant submitted that the Recorder did not apply any or an adequate reduction for assistance to the police and that a reduction of between 15% and 25% would have been appropriate.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the factual basis of the offending and the Recorder's sentencing analysis without finding any error of approach. The Recorder had applied the sentencing guideline for supply of a controlled drug, assessed harm and culpability categories, and identified starting points and ranges: for the conspiracy counts the Recorder treated the Class A conspiracies as falling into category 2 harm with a leading-role starting point; for the single-indictment Class A offending the Recorder assessed category 3 harm with a leading-role starting point. The Recorder gave full credit for guilty pleas (one third credit applied where stated) and adjusted sentences for totality (reducing the consecutive element by three years). The court noted the Recorder considered aggravating factors (previous convictions, variety and quantity of drugs, lengthy indictment period) and mitigation (age, health, ADHD diagnosis, psychological reports, some constructive prison activity), and that the Appellant accepted a leading role.

As to the Appellant's specific complaints: the court found no arguable error in the Recorder's assessment of culpability or in any asserted disparity with the Defendant. The court acknowledged a difficult passage in the Recorder's remarks about the Defendant's drug use and financial gain but concluded this made no material difference to sentencing outcomes. The court held that the Recorder had expressly considered the Appellant's mental health material and that no further exploration would have made a difference to sentence. Regarding assistance to the police, the court accepted for argument that a 15–25% reduction might have been appropriate but concluded that, even applying such an allowance for present purposes, the offending remained so serious that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The direct consequence is that the sentence of 11 years' imprisonment imposed by Judge Cartin stands. The court indicated that no error of principle or manifest excess in sentence was shown and did not establish or depart from any new legal precedent.