A person convicted of multiple counts of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply is not entitled to claim that sentences in respect of all of them should run concurrently on the basis that they are all part of the one business of drug dealing. Such a proposition is plainly wrong in principle.
Wheeler JA
Sentences for multiple counts of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply will not be ordered to run concurrently merely because they form part of the one 'business' of drug dealing; this argument is plainly wrong in principle. The mitigatory force of asset confiscation is negligible where the assets were inherited rather than earned through personal labour and the offending was a deliberate course of conduct rather than a single transaction. Weight and purity of drugs, while relevant, do not determine sentence by mathematical calculation.
No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.
Generate the headnoteFree trial · no card required
Legal principles extracted from this case
Free trial — no card required
Cases considered by Cohen v The State of Western Australia
Referred to (12)
Cases that have considered Cohen v The State of Western Australia
Judicial Consideration (Chronological)