Lam v The Queen

The case of Lam v The Queen involved the defendant, Lam, who was originally sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months for trafficking in commercial and marketable quantities of controlled drugs. The defendant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was disproportionate when compared to her husband’s new sentence following his own re-sentencing. The appeal was heard by the court, which was required to determine whether the disparity between the sentences warranted an appeal on parity grounds.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the decision in Verdins did not apply and that Lam played a significant, albeit less central role than her husband in the drug trafficking operation. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the disparity between Lam's original sentence and her husband's new sentence justified the granting of leave to appeal on parity grounds. The court examined the evidence and the sentencing principles relevant to the case, considering the roles of both Lam and her husband in the criminal activity.

The court found that the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the Verdins principle did not apply in this case, as the facts did not align with the conditions under which the principle would be relevant. The court also accepted that Lam played a significant role in the drug trafficking, albeit less central than her husband. The disparity between the sentences, however, was deemed sufficient to grant leave to appeal on parity grounds. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and Lam was re-sentenced to a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal and the re-sentencing of Lam to a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. The court’s decision emphasised the importance of parity in sentencing and the need for a balanced approach when considering the roles and circumstances of co-offenders in drug trafficking cases.