The offender was sentenced following a plea of guilty to one count of importing a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The original offence imposed 8 years and 6 months imprisonment with a 5 year and 1 month non-parole period. The offender appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive in that it failed to adequately reflect parity principles.
Parity: It was open to the sentencing judge to find that the offender had a comparatively greater role in directional type behaviour. While the sentencing judge found that there was broad equivalence in terms of the hierarchy and role of the offender and Mr Poulakis it remained open to find that there were distinctions with respect to aspects of the conduct of each of the offender and Mr Poulakis. It was appropriate to have regard to the aggravating factor that the offender committed the offence whilst incarcerated for similar offending. There was a reasonable foundation for the difference in the comparative sentences imposed on Mr Poulakis and the offender.
Appeal dismissed.
Parity: It was open to the sentencing judge to find that the offender had a comparatively greater role in directional type behaviour. While the sentencing judge found that there was broad equivalence in terms of the hierarchy and role of the offender and Mr Poulakis it remained open to find that there were distinctions with respect to aspects of the conduct of each of the offender and Mr Poulakis. It was appropriate to have regard to the aggravating factor that the offender committed the offence whilst incarcerated for similar offending. There was a reasonable foundation for the difference in the comparative sentences imposed on Mr Poulakis and the offender.
Appeal dismissed.
