ATH v The State of Western Australia

In the case of ATH v The State of Western Australia, the appellant was convicted of possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply. The appellant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, while a co-offender was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The appellant appealed against her sentence, arguing that the disparity in sentencing infringed the parity principle. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Western Australia.

The court examined the facts and circumstances of the offending, the personal circumstances of the appellant and the co-offender, and the mitigating factors available to each. The court found that the co-offender had a higher level of culpability, but the appellant's role was still significant. The court also found that the co-offender had significant mitigating factors that were not available to the appellant, including a plea of guilty, cooperation with and assistance to the police, and remorse. The court concluded that the sentence imposed on the appellant did not infringe the parity principle or the principle of equal justice.

The court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant, compared to the sentence imposed on the co-offender, did not reveal a marked and unjustifiable disparity or a marked and unjustifiable lack of disparity, adverse to the appellant and favourable to the co-offender. The court also found that the sentencing outcome did not give rise to a legitimate or justifiable sense of grievance on the part of the appellant, and was not such as to give the appearance in the mind of an objective observer that justice had not been done as between the appellant and the co-offender or generally.

The ground of appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the ground of appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of succeeding.