Kim v The Queen

The applicant, Kim, appealed against his sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria, contending that the principle of parity was infringed. Kim was found guilty of various drug and firearm offences, and sentenced to nine years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years. Kim argued that the principle of parity was violated because his co-offenders received lesser sentences, despite similar roles in the offending. He also argued that his sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

The Court examined whether the principle of parity was infringed and noted that co-offenders can receive different sentences if there are legitimate reasons to differentiate between them. In this case, the sentencing judge had considered the differing roles and levels of culpability of the co-offenders and had provided reasons for the disparity in sentences. The Court concluded that the principle of parity did not apply. The Court also assessed whether the sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive, taking into account factors such as the early guilty plea, Kim's personality disorder, and the seriousness of the offending. The Court held that the sentence and non-parole period were not manifestly excessive.

Ultimately, the Court found that the sentence and non-parole period were appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused. The Court noted that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised his discretion reasonably. The Court also noted that the principle of parity did not apply in this case because the co-offenders had different roles and levels of culpability.