Giangiulio v WA

[2022] WASCA 77

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Parity principle
5. › Co-offenders with different roles in drug supply
6. › Whether absence of greater disparity gave rise to justifiable sense of grievance
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a), s 6(1)(c), s 34(1)(a), s 34(2)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Totality principle
5. › Multiple offences
6. › Whether sentencing judge failed to apply totality principle
7. › Whether full cumulation of individual sentences was erroneous
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Standard of appellate review
5. › Sentencing discretion
6. › Whether [name withheld] v The King principles satisfied
7. › Whether sentencing judge's exercise of discretion was unreasonable or plainly unjust

Quick Take

The parity principle does not require strict arithmetical comparison between co-offenders' sentences; it involves a qualitative evaluation of all relevant factors including objective seriousness, culpability, personal circumstances, and all components of sentence. A courier's sentence of 9 years for supplying 2 kg of methylamphetamine, compared to the principal's sentence of 11 years, did not infringe the parity principle. Full cumulation of sentences for separate drug offences involving different drug types does not necessarily infringe the totality principle.