9.5yr sentence for drug trafficker upheld as appeal refused

A 23-year-old who trafficked drugs for almost a year in a sophisticated interstate operation in which his couriers would transport MDMA and cocaine in hidden compartments of cars has lost a bid to appeal his sentence.

*GENERIC* Exterior of Brisbane Supreme Court.

A 23-year-old who trafficked drugs for almost a year in a sophisticated interstate operation in which his couriers would transport MDMA and cocaine in hidden compartments of cars has lost a bid to appeal his sentence.

Jarrod Alexander Solway argued his nine-and-a-half-year prison term was manifestly excessive, submitting the sentencing judge did not adequately weigh the mitigating features in his favour and that the authorities tendered were not truly comparable.

But in a two-to-one majority decision, the Court of Appeal has refused him leave to appeal.

Solway pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Supreme Court in May 2022 to charges including drug trafficking.

The court heard he had trafficked in multiple dangerous drugs for 10 months.

“He sourced drugs from Sydney in wholesale amounts on a regular basis, utilising two couriers and vehicles containing hidden compartments to transport the drugs,” the appeal decision said.

He profited more than $46,000 from the drug business in which he made at least 29 sales.

Thirteen of the sales were unwittingly made to undercover police officers.

The court heard Solway had no criminal history at the time, was suffering from mental health issues and himself was a user of drugs.

The court accepted while he was “significantly motivated by profit”, his own drug addiction meant the offending was not “simply a cynical commercial operation”.

In the three year period between his arrest in 2019 and his sentence, Solway ceased using drugs, with the court hearing he had good prospects of rehabilitation.

He had a strong work history and owned a roofing business which he closed down just before being sentenced.

The appeal judges – justices Frances Williams, David Boddice and Debra Mullins – had differing opinions.

Justice Williams said a slightly shorter sentence of nine years would have been an appropriate sentence that reflected the mitigating features including Solway’s rehabilitation while on bail awaiting sentence, his youth and his mental health issues.

But Justice Boddice and Justice Mullins found the original sentence was appropriate, refusing Solway leave to appeal.

“There was no error in the imposition of the sentence by the sentencing judge,” Justice Boddice wrote.

“Further, a consideration of all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and of the comparable authorities supports a conclusion that the sentence imposed was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust.

“To the contrary, the sentence fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion.”