High Court overrules longer sentence for NT drug dealer

THE High Court of Australia has ruled that the NT Court of Appeal failed in its duty to ‘accord procedural fairness’ when it sentenced a convicted drug dealer to an extra three years in jail a week before he was supposed to get out

The High Court of Australia has ruled that the NT Court of Appeal failed in its duty to ‘accord procedural fairness’ when it sentenced a convicted drug dealer to an extra three years in jail a week before he was supposed to get out

THE HIGH Court of Australia has ruled that the Northern Territory Court of Appeal failed in its duty to “accord procedural fairness” when it sentenced a convicted drug dealer to an extra three years in jail just a week before he was supposed to get out.

Jesse Cumberland, who was in his early 20s at the time of the offending, was sent to jail in June 2017 for dealing MDMA and cannabis – including to minors.

MORE TOP NT NEWS

Two week wait to reopen Kakadu to cost tourism operators more than $1m

Throb on Point sunset lounge will not go ahead at East Point

Qantas, Jetstar increase flight services – but not to or from NT

He was sentenced in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in April 2018 to four years and six months’ jail, suspended after two years, after pleading guilty.

The prosecution appealed his sentence later that month on the grounds that it was “manifestly inadequate”.

However, it took the three NT Court of Appeal Judges more than 10 months, after announcing they would allow the appeal, to make orders to re-sentence Cumberland.

Subsequently, Cumberland was re-sentenced to a term of eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and five months on June 19 2019 – just one week before he was set to be released under his original sentence.

Cumberlands’ defence lawyer Mark Thomas appealed to the High Court, with Cumberland winning the appeal and being released from prison in April.

NEW OFFER: Get amazing Sennheiser earbuds (RRP: $499) with NT News subscription deal

In the reasons for their judgment released earlier this week, the High Court ruled the time between allowing the appeal and re-sentencing Cumberland made the ruling unfair.

“In the way the proceedings were finalised, the appellant was not given the opportunity to place material before the Court of Criminal Appeal as to his progress in custody, nor to make submissions on re-sentence or dismissal of the appeal.”