Ho v The State of Western Australia

The case of Ho v The State of Western Australia involved two appellants, Hung D Ho and Thuong Michael Ngo, who were cousins and co-offenders in a drug trafficking case. Both were convicted of possessing a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply it to another. The appellants appealed against their sentences, with Ngo arguing that his sentence was manifestly excessive and Ho arguing that his sentence infringed the parity principle and was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Mazza J, Beech JA, and Seward J, heard the appeals on 6 September 2023 and delivered its decision on 13 November 2023.

The Court dismissed Ngo's appeal against sentence, finding that while the sentence was high, it was not manifestly excessive. The Court allowed Ho's appeal on the basis that the disparity between the sentences imposed on him and Ngo infringed the parity principle. Ho's sentence was set aside, and he was resentenced to 11 years and 6 months imprisonment, with eligibility for parole, backdated to 18 June 2022.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered the legal principles applicable to allegations of manifest excess and the parity principle, as well as the general sentencing considerations for serious drug offences. The Court found that Ngo's criminality was significant, and while he was exploited by those above him in the criminal enterprise, he consciously chose to commit the offence. The Court also found that Ho's role in the enterprise was much lower than Ngo's, and the two-year disparity between their sentences was inadequate, revealing error and giving rise to an objectively justifiable sense of grievance on Ho's part. The Court resentenced Ho to 11 years and 6 months imprisonment, taking into account his role, personal circumstances, and the need for general deterrence.