Davis v The Queen

The applicant, Davis, was involved in two separate sales of heroin, with a combined total of 20.66 grams. The heroin was found to be 78-80% pure. Davis was sentenced to a total of five years for these offences. However, his co-offender, who was also involved in the same offences, received two sentences for these offences, which were ordered to be served concurrently. Additionally, the co-offender was sentenced for other offences at the same time, resulting in an effective sentence of 12 years for all offences. Davis appealed the decision, arguing that his sentences should be served concurrently, and that the difference in sentences was due to differing circumstances.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Davis's two sentences should be served concurrently, as his co-offender's sentences were. The court had to consider the principle of parity, which dictates that similar offenders should receive similar sentences. The court also had to consider whether there were any circumstances that justified the difference in sentences between Davis and his co-offender.

The court found that there were differing circumstances between Davis and his co-offender that justified the difference in sentences. The court found that Davis had played a more significant role in the drug supply chain than his co-offender, and that he had shown a greater degree of culpability. The court also found that the co-offender had shown greater remorse and had provided substantial assistance to the police, which was taken into account when sentencing. The court held that it was not necessary for the sentences to be identical, as long as they were proportionate to the offender's degree of culpability.

The court dismissed Davis's appeal, holding that the sentences were proportionate to the offender's degree of culpability. The court found that the sentences were not manifestly inadequate or excessive, and that there was no basis for ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. The court held that the principle of parity did not require identical sentences, and that the differing circumstances between Davis and his co-offender justified the difference in sentences.