1. “I think the sentence awarded was within the range open to the judge, and in particular that the judge was entitled, as he did, to place considerable emphasis upon the principle of general deterrence. A very, very high proportion of the criminal cases that we see in this Court is drug related, whether or not they are cases of offences against legislation relating to drugs of addiction. The fact is that drugs breed crime of all kinds, and heroin is one of the more pernicious of them. It truly poisons society. It is the responsibility of the courts to do what they can – and I fear that it is little enough – to curb this menace. One way open, one of the very few open to the courts, is to emphasise to the community at large, by reference to the principle of general deterrence, that, if legislation is infringed in the way in which the applicant infringed it, the consequences will be dire.” Per Tadgell JA in R v Pantsis  VSCA 134, Vic Court of Appeal, 1 December 1998.
2. “A large city attracts all types, and it is no doubt part and parcel of city living that we must all rub shoulders with the city’s natural store of inhabitants. Everyone, however, is entitled to the benefit of an environment protected by the rule of law. It is imperative, therefore, that the courts should, in fulfilment of the functions entrusted to them by Parliament, both instil confidence in law-abiding citizens and, to that end, deter malefactors of the ilk of the applicants. Everyone should be entitled to walk the streets of Melbourne at any hour and to use other open spaces without fear of the kind of conduct which beset the various victims of the crimes with which we are now concerned. It is all very well to take into account the various matters which were urged in favour of the applicants. This Court, however, cannot deal adequately with these applications without bearing in mind the interests of law-abiding citizens to which I have referred.” Per Tadgell JA in R v Smith & Prydderch  VSCA 140, Vic Court of Appeal, 6 September 1999.