appeal against sentence by three co-offenders heard by same court, fourth co-offender not subject of appeal — each charged with attempting to possess an unlawfully imported substance, the substance being a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine offence contrary to s 307.5(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — offences related to attempted possession of 142kgs of methamphetamine — original sentence imposed 27 years’ imprisonment with 18 year non-parole period for Offender 3, and 22 years’ imprisonment with 14 year and 6 month non-parole period for Offenders 1 and 2 — Offender 1 — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — sentencing judge did not take into account utilitarian value of guilty plea — late plea after fully contested committal proceedings — even when one takes into account utilitarian value, discount for plea would be modest, about 10 to 15 percent — nature and circumstances of offence — s 16A(2)(a) — objective seriousness — difficulty to find guidance as to how to deal with particular facts which involve large importation of prohibited drug — offending by Offender 1 would be well above mid-range of offending, but certainly not approaching the worst category of offending — Offender 1 was not a principal, albeit an important member of drug importation syndicate — danger in a matter of this kind is that sentencing judge, to some extent, can be overwhelmed by sheer quantity of drug sought to be imported — lesser sentence warranted in law for Offender 1 — Offender 2 — parity — similar position in hierarchy of drug enterprise as Offender 1 — overall sentence of fourth co-offender exceeded sentence imposed on Offender 2, because fourth co-offender found guilty of two additional offences — sentence seems to have resulted from sentencing judge’s assessment of hierarchy that involved Offender 3 at apex and fourth co-offender at the bottom — fourth co-offender’s role was considerably more significant than that of Offenders 1 and 2 — fourth co-offender was at top of Australian hierarchy — taking that matter into account and also the other matters in relation to Offender 1, consider that a lesser sentence is warranted in law for Offender 2 — Offender 3 — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — sentencing judge erred in failing to take account utilitarian value of guilty plea — necessary for court to exercise afresh sentencing discretion — unnecessary to come to any firm conclusion in relation to ground asserting manifest excess other than to say the court would, in circumstances of this case, have imposed a sentence significantly lower than imposed on Offender 1 — unnecessary to come to any final conclusion in relation to ground asserting disparity — good deal of merit in Offender 3’s case — bear in mind sentence imposed on fourth co-offender and that to be imposed on Offenders 1 and 2 — taking into account Offender 3’s role in importation, magnitude of importation, particular personal circumstances including likely hardship in custody, absence of any serious criminal history and guarded assessment that Offender 3 had some prospects for rehabilitation upon deportation at end of very long sentence — Offenders 1 and 2 resentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment with 12 year non-parole period — Offender 3 resentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment with 14 year non-parole period
