CRIME 2: Sentencing Comparison and Analysis of Applewaite Cases

This assignment delves into the process of sentencing by comparing Sheldon's case to similar cases outlined in Applewaite (1996). The analysis considers factors like the offender's age, criminal history, and mitigating circumstances, along with offense variables such as the number of plants and the commerciality of the operation. By examining cases like CACOPARDO, SFORZA, and GRAHAM, the assignment highlights the relevance of offender and procedure variables in determining a sentence. The solution suggests a sentence of 3 years with parole after 12 months for Sheldon, based on the comparisons and the mitigating factors present, such as Sheldon's mild autism and lack of prior criminal record. The assignment underscores the importance of comparative analysis in sentencing decisions, drawing upon the variables and case precedents to suggest an appropriate sentence. The assignment is a practical application of legal principles, providing a clear and concise analysis of the sentencing process.

The following cases in the schedule in Applewaite are the closest comparables for providing
guidance about what sentence Sheldon might receive.
1. CACOPARDO, DAVID (CA no 201 of 1984): The accused was of 18 years
of the age and was under the influence of his father who was also charged.
Reason of selection: In Sheldon’s case, he was mildly autistic. The fact shows that his disease
made his social judgment poor. He had no criminal history just like the accused in the selected
case. Also, Sheldon was under the influence of his teacher and the emotionally sympathetic
reasons behind the crime. Sheldon believed that the plants he invested time into growing were
not “dangerous drugs”; as evidence, he might have been of the age 25 years but his
understanding of matters was not that mature. In the selected case, the sentence provided for
was: “3 years rec parole after 12 months. It was actually reduced on appeal from a sentence of 5
years with a rec for parole after 2 years.)
2. SFORZA, ROBERT (Circuit Court, Toowoomba 18 July 1991 Derrington
J): The accused was of 18 years of the age.
Reason of selection: Like Sheldon, he had no prior record of conviction. He was involved in the
tending of the crop. Sheldon liked gardening and also did not consider the drug plants to be
“dangerous” and law involved in such. He invested his time and effort in growing plants like
more of gardening. Here lies the similarity. The accused of the selected case was sentenced for 3
years rec parole after 12 months.
3. GRAHAM, BRUCE (Supreme Court Rockhampton 26 March 1990): The
accused was of 50 years of the age with no record of a prior conviction.
Reason of selection: The accused participated in the cultivation and involved in loading at least
one cannabis for commercial distribution. Sheldon was also involved in the cultivation. In the
end, he demanded a share of the profit because of the effort he put in it, like the accused in the
selected case, involved in the commercial nature of the crime. The accused was sentenced for 3
years.
According to the references provided, “offender variables include the age of the offender,
presence or absence of criminal history, life circumstances that might be mitigating, etc.
Procedure variables include such things as whether or not the accused pleaded guilty or went to
trial, and, if there was a plea of guilty, whether it was an early plea (the earlier the better from the
perspective of gaining a reduction in sentence).
Offence variables include such things as the number of plants, the sophistication of the
operation, the commerciality of the operation, the value of the product and so on.” Sheldon had
no previous record of conviction and also pleaded guilty. The plants were also of early age. So,
from the mentioned cases, the suggested sentencing is of 3 years rec parole after 12 months to be
specific.