Gao v The Queen

The applicant, Gao, was convicted for supplying a commercial quantity of ecstasy on two separate occasions. Gao appealed against his sentence, arguing it was disproportionate compared to that of his co-offender. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Gao was appropriate in comparison to his co-offender and whether it created an unreasonable sense of grievance. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge erred in not ordering the sentences for the two separate offences to be served concurrently.

The court held that for parity to be meaningful, the applicant and co-offender must be truly comparable in terms of their respective roles and culpability. Here, the court found that the applicant and co-offender were not truly comparable, thus negating the parity argument. The court further examined whether the sentence gave rise to a reasonable sense of grievance. It found that no disparity had been demonstrated, and therefore, the sentence was not excessive. Regarding the concurrent sentencing issue, the court considered that although the offences had common features, they were distinct in time and nature. The court concluded that the partial accumulation of one year for the two separate acts of serious criminality was not erroneous.

In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the appeal. The sentence imposed on Gao was deemed appropriate and did not create an unreasonable sense of grievance. The court's decision affirmed the original sentencing approach and maintained the imposed penalties.