Lau v The Queen

Lau and The Queen came before the court in an appeal against sentence. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years 6 months for attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a substance reasonably suspected of being unlawfully imported. The applicant's co-offender was sentenced to 12 years 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years 4 months for importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug. The applicant's involvement was at a low level in the importation of two consignments of methamphetamine, while the co-offender was involved at a high level in the importation of four consignments. The co-offender’s quantity of methamphetamine was almost double that of the applicant.

The legal issues for the court to determine were whether the sentences imposed on the applicant and co-offender were commensurate with the respective levels of involvement and seriousness of their offences, and whether there was a sufficient differential between the sentences. The applicant argued that the sentences were disproportionate given the difference in their respective roles and the Crown conceded that the offences were of significantly different seriousness.

The court found that there was a need for a much greater differential between the sentences of the applicant and the co-offender to reflect the disparity in their respective levels of involvement and the seriousness of their offences. The court considered the relevant principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing and concluded that the applicant’s sentence was excessive in comparison to that of the co-offender. The court allowed the appeal, resentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years, and directed that the applicant be given credit for the time already served.