Marku v The Queen

In the case of Marku v The Queen, the appellant, Marku, sought to appeal his sentence for cultivating and trafficking cannabis, which was imposed after he was found guilty of these offences while on bail. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years was manifestly excessive, as well as whether the disparity between Marku’s sentence and that of his co-offender violated the principle of parity.

The court considered the severity of Marku's involvement in the sophisticated cannabis enterprise, which included the use of four properties for cultivation and distribution. It was noted that the sentence was not excessive, given the appellant's significant role in the operation. Furthermore, the court examined the principle of parity in sentencing, which requires that similar offenders be treated alike. However, the court found that the circumstances of the co-offender were markedly different, justifying the disparity in their respective sentences. The co-offender had a lesser involvement and had shown remorse, which were factors that contributed to the differing sentences.

Given the reasoning above, the court concluded that the sentence imposed on Marku was not manifestly excessive and that the principle of parity was not offended by the disparity in sentences. The appeal was therefore dismissed, with the court finding no point of principle involved in the case. As a result, the appellant’s conviction and sentence stand affirmed.