The applicant in R v. Morrison was 41 years old and had a criminal history for similar offences, but he povided the names of drug suppliers to the police and that would have counted in his favour. He too was an addict.

[2]

In R v. Nguyen and Truong [1994] QCA 389; [1995] 2 Qd.R. 285, the amount of heroin possessed was 42 grams of powder containing 22 grams of the pure drug, in a case in which the leading offender received a sentence of six years' imprisonment. There, of course, the quantity of heroin in possession was considerably less. In the last two cases, the sentence was lower, but the quantities involved were one-third (or less) of the quantity involved here.

[3]

Plainly, his Honour added the recommendation for parole in order to encourage the applicant and as a reflection of his youth. I do not think that we could improve upon that recommendation, which in effect reduces the period that he would expect to serve in prison from about three and a half years to two and a half.

[4]

The sentence imposed, in my opinion, cannot be described as excessive and there are no errors in the reasoning that would lead us to review it. In my view, the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

[5]

McPHERSON JA: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

# R

Respondent/Defendant:

McAnally \[2001\] QCA 66

Cases Cited (2)

[2001] QCA 66

In R v. Morrison [1998] QCA 162; [1999] 1 Qd.R. 397, a sentence of imprisonment of five years was imposed, with parole after 18 months, which is a lower sentence than the applicant here received. In that case, however, the quantity of heroin possessed was 42 grams of powder containing 22 grams of pure heroin, and some cocaine amounting to one gram of powder containing 0.3 grams of the pure drug.