The offender was sentenced following a plea of guilty to 1 count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug contrary to s 302.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and 1 count of attempting to possess an unlawfully imported commercial quantity of a border controlled drug contrary to s 307.5(1). Count 1 related to 19,056.3g of pure methamphetamine and Count 2 related to 41,706.7 of pure methamphetamine. The original sentence imposed 13 years and 3 months imprisonment with a 7 year and 1 month non-parole period. The offender appealed firstly on the basis that they were more exposed to investigative attention and therefore at a lower level of the hierarchy and secondly on the basis of a justifiable sense of grievance between the sentence imposed on them and the sentence imposed on co-offenders.
Parity: The first ground submits that the explanation for the failure to allow sufficient distinction is explained by the failure of the sentencing judge to take into account the greater risk of investigative attention suffered by the offender. The second ground asserts a justifiable sense of grievance. The mere fact that the Court may have set the relativity between two co-offenders differently from the sentencing judge is in and of itself insufficient ot warrant intervention by the Court. The offender received a sentence that is approximately 83.5% of the sentence imposed on the co-offender. The exposure of the offender would have inevitably led to the exposure of the co-offender such that the exposure on which the offender relies was not such as to highlight the different roles of the offender and co-offender.
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Parity: The first ground submits that the explanation for the failure to allow sufficient distinction is explained by the failure of the sentencing judge to take into account the greater risk of investigative attention suffered by the offender. The second ground asserts a justifiable sense of grievance. The mere fact that the Court may have set the relativity between two co-offenders differently from the sentencing judge is in and of itself insufficient ot warrant intervention by the Court. The offender received a sentence that is approximately 83.5% of the sentence imposed on the co-offender. The exposure of the offender would have inevitably led to the exposure of the co-offender such that the exposure on which the offender relies was not such as to highlight the different roles of the offender and co-offender.
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
