Oleyar v the Queen

The appellant, Oleyar, appealed against his sentence imposed by the County Court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that there had been a breach of the parity principle. The appellant had been found guilty of trafficking a drug of dependence and possessing a small amount of cannabis for personal use. The court had sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment for the trafficking offence and a concurrent sentence of imprisonment for the possession charge. The appellant's co-offenders received different sentences for the same trafficking offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive and whether there had been a breach of the parity principle. The appellant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive, given the sentences imposed on his co-offenders. Additionally, the appellant submitted that the sentence imposed for the possession charge was legally impermissible, as the court had not taken into account the small quantity of cannabis in determining the sentence. The Crown contended that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that there had been no breach of the parity principle.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the court had considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences. The court also found that there had been no breach of the parity principle, as the court had considered the different roles of the co-offenders in determining the sentences. However, the court found that the sentence imposed for the possession charge was legally impermissible, as the court had not taken into account the small quantity of cannabis in determining the sentence. The court exercised its power under section 280(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to amend the impermissible sentence. The application for leave to appeal was refused.

The court dismissed the appeal and amended the sentence imposed for the possession charge. The appellant's sentence for the trafficking offence remained unchanged. The court ordered that the appellant be released on parole eligibility after serving two years and six months of his sentence for the trafficking offence. The appellant was also ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence for the possession charge concurrently with the sentence for the trafficking offence.