Assi v The Queen; Jomaa v The Queen

The two applicants in this case were convicted of importing tobacco without payment of excise duty and each appealed against their respective sentences. The applicants were each recruited into a conspiracy by an undercover operative. Following their convictions, each was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which they both appealed on the basis that the sentences were excessive. Both applicants raised an additional ground of appeal concerning the parity of sentences, arguing that the sentence imposed on the other should be considered in determining their own appropriate sentence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge correctly considered the parity argument and whether the applicants' status as licensed customs brokers warranted a lesser sentence. Under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the court must consider whether the person has been convicted of an offence for which a custodial sentence is mandatory and whether the offence was committed in connection with the business of a licensed customs broker. The court needed to determine if the sentencing judge properly considered these factors in imposing the sentences.

The court rejected the parity argument, finding that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in considering the individual circumstances of each applicant. The court found that the factor concerning the business of a licensed customs broker was made out. However, despite this, the court held that no lesser sentence was warranted in law, affirming the original sentencing decisions. The appeals were dismissed, with the court upholding the original sentences imposed on the applicants.