R v Bobonica & Runcan

The applicants in these appeals were convicted of drug trafficking and supply offences and subsequently appealed against their sentences. The applicants were involved in drug trafficking activities captured during an undercover police operation. Bobonica was charged with one count of trafficking, six counts of supplying a dangerous drug, and one count of possessing a thing used in connection with trafficking. Runcan was charged with one count of trafficking and nine counts of supplying a dangerous drug. Both applicants pleaded guilty and were sentenced by the primary judge. The applicants argued that their sentences were manifestly excessive, particularly in comparison to the sentences of their co-offenders. They submitted that the primary judge had not given sufficient regard to the principle of parity between co-offenders and that the sentences imposed were excessive in light of the totality principle.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate. This involved examining the principle of parity between co-offenders and the totality principle, which requires that the sentence imposed on an offender must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s role in it. The court needed to consider whether the primary judge had sufficiently taken into account the totality of the offending, the relative roles of the co-offenders, and whether there was a lack of parity between the sentences imposed on the applicants and their co-offenders.

The court found that the sentences imposed on the applicants were manifestly excessive. The court held that there was little, if anything, to distinguish the conduct of the applicants from their co-offenders, who had been sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment. The court found that the primary judge had not adequately considered the principle of parity between co-offenders and had not given sufficient regard to the totality principle. As a result, the court allowed the appeals, setting aside the sentences for certain counts and substituting a reduced sentence for one of the applicants. The court also declared that the applicants had been convicted of a serious violent offence under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).