The Court held that when comparing sentences for parity purposes, a direct comparison between an initial sentence imposed by the Drug Court under s 7A(3)-(4) of the Drug Court Act 1998 and a sentence imposed in another court is legitimate, because both are fixed in accordance with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The Court rejected the proposition in Tobia that such comparisons are 'generally unproductive', holding there is no statutory basis for the Drug Court to incorporate a 'significant measure of leniency' in the initial sentence — the leniency afforded by the Drug Court resides in the suspension of the sentence and diversion to treatment programs. However, N Adams CJ at CL observed that if, as a matter of practice, some leniency does exist in Drug Court sentences, it is unquantifiable and therefore cannot be considered in a parity analysis.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.