Hiu Mei Lam v R

The appellant, Hiu Mei Lam, appealed against her sentence for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) and knowingly dealing in proceeds of crime. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and her co-offender infringed the principle of parity, given that the disparity was not justified. The court was also required to consider the family hardship caused by the appellant's potential deportation at the completion of her sentence, and the plea for mercy on this basis.

The court noted that the appellant and her co-offender were both involved in the same criminal enterprise, but their roles differed. The appellant was found to have a significant role in the trafficking operation, but her involvement was less than that of the co-offender. The court acknowledged that the principle of parity in sentencing requires that similarly situated offenders be treated alike, but also recognised that differences in roles and personal circumstances can justify disparities in sentences. In this case, the court found that the disparity in sentencing was not sufficiently justified by the differences in the appellant's and co-offender's roles, or by any other factor. The court also considered the family hardship caused by the appellant's potential deportation, but found that this did not constitute exceptional hardship warranting a reduction in sentence.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment with 5 years non-parole. The court found that this sentence better reflected the principle of parity and the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the resentence took into account the appellant's family circumstances, including the fact that her child is an Australian citizen. The final orders of the court were that the appellant's sentence be reduced to 8 years’ imprisonment with 5 years non-parole.