A court is not obliged to use a co-offender's post-appeal sentence as a parity comparator where the court considers the earlier appeal was wrongly decided, as to do so would compound error. The public interest in adequate sentences may outweigh the public interest in even-handed treatment of co-offenders. Where an offender claims ignorance of the precise nature of the narcotic substance imported, the burden of proving that mitigating circumstance rests on the offender on the balance of probabilities; the Crown is not required to prove the offender's knowledge of the specific drug beyond reasonable doubt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.