Ayik v R

In Ayik v R, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for knowingly taking part in the supply of a large commercial quantity of heroin. The case involved a drug distribution network in New South Wales, where the applicant and his co-offender, C, were implicated. The applicant stored the heroin at his premises, and C collected it at Zhang’s direction. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the principles of parity and proportionality given the differences in sentences between the applicant and C. The applicant argued that the structure of C’s sentence, particularly the discounts for exceptional assistance and acting under duress, created a sense of grievance and breached the parity principle.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge's approach to the principle of parity was flawed. It noted that the applicant's counsel had not raised the specific issues about the structure of C's sentence during the original sentencing hearing. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately applied the principle of parity by considering the different levels of culpability and subjective features of the applicant and C. The judge had set a start point of 12 years for both offenders based on their respective criminal conduct and adjusted it according to their individual circumstances. The court found that the differences in the final sentences were justified by the factors such as C’s exceptional assistance to authorities and the duress under which he acted, which were not present in the applicant’s case.

The appeal was dismissed as the court found no error in the application of the principles of parity. The sentencing judge had carefully considered the relevant factors and appropriately structured the sentences to ensure they were commensurate with the total criminality. The differences in the sentences were not such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, and the principle of parity was correctly observed.