Ip v The Queen

Ip was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug and dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime. The applicant appealed the sentence on the basis that the sentence imposed was disproportionate when compared to the sentence of a co-offender who was sentenced on equivalent charges but had his sentence reduced on appeal. Ip submitted that the original sentencing differential should be restored. The Crown conceded that the applicant’s sentence was excessive and that the appeal should be allowed. The court held that the appropriate course was to allow the appeal and to resentence the applicant. The total effective sentence of imprisonment imposed was 8 years and 5 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years. The court applied the decision in Tregenza v The Queen.

The issue before the court was whether the original sentencing differential should be restored given the co-offender’s successful appeal against sentence. The court considered the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing. It was noted that where a co-offender has had their sentence reduced on appeal, the original sentencing differential may need to be restored to ensure parity. The court also considered the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system and to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offending. The court held that the appropriate course was to allow the appeal and to resentence the applicant to ensure parity with the co-offender’s reduced sentence.