Dhal v The Queen

In Dhal v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences, including armed robbery, robbery, and possession of a drug, Mirtazapan. The total effective sentence imposed was five years and nine months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three-and-a-half years. The appellant sought leave to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence, arguing that the conviction for possessing Mirtazapan should be set aside as it was not a "drug of dependence" and that the remaining sentence was excessive and breached the principles of totality and parity. The court was tasked with deciding whether the remaining sentence was manifestly excessive or in breach of the principles of totality and parity and whether setting aside the conviction for Mirtazapan reopened the sentencing discretion on all other aspects of the total sentence.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, including totality, parity, and the need for sentences to reflect the relative seriousness of offences. It noted that the sentence for the possession of Mirtazapan was set aside as the drug did not fall under the definition of a "drug of dependence." The court then considered whether the remaining sentence was manifestly excessive or in breach of the principles of totality and parity. It found that the remaining sentence was excessive and in breach of the principle of parity as the appellant's co-offenders received lesser sentences. The court also determined that setting aside the conviction for Mirtazapan did not necessarily reopen the sentencing discretion on all other aspects of the total sentence but warranted a review of the entire sentence.

The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeals, and directed an acquittal on the possession of Mirtazapan charge. The appellant was resentenced to a total effective sentence of four years and eight months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two-and-a-half years. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and reflect the relative seriousness of offences, taking into account the principles of totality and parity. This case highlights the need for courts to carefully consider the impact of setting aside a conviction on the overall sentence and to ensure that the remaining sentence is just and proportionate to the offences committed.