Mammone v R

The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia by Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, and Gleeson JJ. The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in a controlled drug and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that his sentence was disproportionate when compared to sentences imposed on other offenders involved in similar conduct. The Crown argued that there was no basis for the appellant's assertion of disparity and that the sentence was just.

The court noted that in order to be manifestly excessive, a sentence must be so disproportionate to the offence that it shocks the conscience of the court. The court further noted that the test for manifest excessiveness is not the same as the test for a sentence being too severe. The court found that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive, despite the disparities noted by the appellant. The court found that the appellant's age, background, criminal history, and role in the offence were relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that the disparity in sentences did not shock the conscience of the court and that the appellant's sentence was just.