Chin v The Queen

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the appellant, Chin, who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the supply of commercial quantities of methamphetamine and cannabis. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing judge had erred in applying the principles established in *The Queen v Roe* contrary to the principle of instinctive synthesis, whether the principle of parity required a lesser sentence than that imposed on a co-offender, and whether the sentencing judge had failed to consider the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The Full Court found no specific error in the sentencing judge's reasons. However, it concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court applied the principle of instinctive synthesis, considering all relevant factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence. While the principle of parity was considered, it did not mandate a specific outcome in this instance. The Court also considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. Ultimately, the Full Court determined that a sentence of 7 years imprisonment was appropriate, and the appellant was re-sentenced accordingly.