appeal against sentence — attempting to possess commercial quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drug offence — offender sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment with 5 year non-parole period — multiple offenders — co-offender convicted of importing commercial quantity of border controlled drug offence — co-offender sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment with 2 year and 6 month non-parole period — co-operation — s 16AC(2) — co-offender gave undertaking to assist authorities in future prosecutions of co-offenders — sentencing judge not in error by holding that but for co-offender’s co-operation, same sentence as offender would have been imposed — parity — appeal court not placed in position of sentencing judge — question to be answered is whether offender entitled to justifiable sense of grievance on an objective consideration of entire circumstances of offence — court must be persuaded that sentence imposed not reasonably open — instinctive synthesis — where more than one offender is being sentenced, sentencing not a mechanical exercise in which circumstances are to be weighed with pretence of arithmetical certainty — resorting to a minute examination of individual circumstances of offending and offenders in attempting to demonstrate sentence not reasonably open is counter to concept of instinctive synthesis — sentencing judge correct in consideration of parity principle — fact that offender and co-offenders charged with different offences does not mean parity considerations do not apply — overall picture of offending similar — sentencing judge correct in finding roles of offender and co-offender were comparable — sentencing judge correct in approaching issue of parity in broad and practical way — leave to appeal against sentence refused — appeal dismissed
