A 4-year disparity between a 20-year sentence for a hands-on drug courier and a 24-year sentence for the head of a drug syndicate was held to be within the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion and did not infringe the parity principle. The parity principle applies even where co-offenders are charged with different offences, provided there is a meaningful connection between the offending. Where no express sentencing error is identified, the appellate question is whether the disparity was open in the exercise of the sentencing discretion, not whether the appellate court would have exercised the discretion differently.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.