Palmisano v The Queen

In the matter of Palmisano v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of various charges related to money laundering and dealing in proceeds of crime. The appellant was found in possession of $6,150, while a co-offender was found in possession of $30,000. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, whereas the co-offender was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that the differential between the sentences was not reasonably open. The central legal issue was whether the differential between the sentences was reasonably open in light of the disparity in the amounts of money involved and the Crown's concession that the differential was not reasonably open.

The court considered the principles of parity in sentencing and the factors relevant to assessing the gravity of an offence. The court noted that the Crown had conceded that the differential between the sentences was not reasonably open. The court agreed, stating that the disparity in the amounts of money involved and the Crown's concession were significant factors in determining that the differential was not reasonably open. The court also considered the need for consistency in sentencing and the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence. The court concluded that the differential between the sentences was not reasonably open and that the appellant's sentence should be reconsidered.

In light of the court's findings, the appellant's sentence was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for resentencing. The court emphasised the importance of considering the principles of parity in sentencing and the need for consistency in assessing the gravity of an offence. The court also noted that the resentencing should take into account the total effective sentence and the non-parole period. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for resentencing in accordance with the court's directions.