Do, Van Nghiem v The Queen

This appeal concerns the sentence imposed by Ellis DCJ on the applicant, Van Nghiem Do, for the supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years. The applicant challenges the sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive and that it did not accord with the parity principle. The central issue for determination was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the parity principle. The applicant contended that his role in the drug supply was less significant than that of his co-offender, and that the parity principle required his sentence to reflect this lesser role. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive because it did not accord with the parity principle.

The Court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to drug offences and the application of the parity principle. The Court noted that the sentencing judge had found that the applicant and his co-offender had approximately equal roles in the transaction, albeit performing different functions. The Court held that while the applicant’s role was not that of a mere courier, it was also not that of a major player in the supply chain. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was not manifestly excessive and appropriately reflected the gravity of the offence and the applicant’s role within it. The Court found that the parity principle was not engaged in a way that required a different outcome.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, finding it to be appropriate and not manifestly excessive.