The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a four-year prison sentence imposed on Marie Troy for four counts of possessing controlled drugs for supply, arising from a detection on 22 December 2010.
Troy was convicted by a jury after pleading not guilty. The sentence was backdated to 17 May 2013, when she was remanded in custody. The other counts in that case were taken into consideration.
The appeal argued, among other grounds, that the Director of Public Prosecutions had been prepared to consent to the case being dealt with summarily in the District Court if Troy pleaded guilty. The appellant submitted that this indicated a sentence of no more than the District Court’s 12-month maximum was appropriate. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It said the trial judge was not barred from imposing a longer sentence after conviction on indictment, and found no evidence that Troy had been penalised for choosing trial. It also accepted that she made an informed and voluntary choice after receiving legal advice.
The court rejected a claim that the sentence was unjustifiably higher than one imposed in a separate case heard at the same time. In that case, Troy had pleaded guilty to three further drug-supply counts and received a two-year sentence to run concurrently. The court said the guilty plea provided substantial mitigation and described the second sentence as appearing lenient. That sentence was not challenged, and the appeal court said it could not review it.
The court also found no error in the trial judge’s treatment of prosecution evidence suggesting regular dealing, which it said could inform the seriousness of the detected offending. It rejected the claim that the judge had relied on speculation or matters outside the evidence. The court found no basis to interfere over the delay between the offences and trial, noting that no evidence showed substantial prejudice and that the delay was not gross or egregious.
The appeal was dismissed and the four-year sentence confirmed. The court made no order reviewing the separate concurrent sentence.