› Whether marked disparity between sentences of co-offenders
› Whether difference in roles adequately reflected in sentencing differentiation
› Whether justifiable sense of grievance arose
Criminal Law
› Appeal
› Sentence
› Manifest excess
› Trafficking in commercial quantity of border controlled drug
› Limited role as courier
› Significance of general deterrence
› Whether sentence manifestly excessive
› Criminal Code (Cth), s 302.2(1)
Criminal Law
› Sentencing
› Drug offences
› Trafficking in commercial quantity of methamphetamine
› Role of offender as courier
› General deterrence
› Criminal Code (Cth), s 302.2(1)
Quick Take
1A two-year differential between co-offenders' sentences for related trafficking offending was within the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge, given the material difference in roles and the need to assess parity broadly in the context of the co-offender's total effective sentence and totality considerations.
2In cases involving trafficking in commercial quantities of border-controlled drugs, the significance of general deterrence necessarily means less weight can be given to factors personal to the offender than might otherwise be the case.
3An attempt to demonstrate want of parity by minute examination of individual circumstances of offending and offenders runs counter to the concept of instinctive synthesis, as restated in Thien Thi Tran v The Queen [2017] VSCA 346.
Case Details
Citation[2018] VSCA 64
CourtVSCA
JurisdictionVictoria
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
