The Court of Criminal Appeal held that a marked disparity between the applicant's 7-year sentence (with 4 years 4 months non-parole period) and a co-offender's 3-year sentence with immediate release on recognisance was justified by conspicuous differences in their respective criminality and subjective cases. The applicant played a substantial and necessary role in the drug enterprise including recruiting the co-offender, whereas the co-offender was a last-minute recruit who did not appreciate the criminal purpose until the offence was underway, was younger, had exceptional mental health circumstances stemming from his brother's suicide, and had stronger prospects of rehabilitation. The Court confirmed that parity analysis requires comparison of all sentence components including non-parole periods and actual time in custody, and that where co-offenders are sentenced by different judges, the differing material before each judge and their respective assessments must be carefully examined.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.