R v CHAMINGS

The case of R v Chamings involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant for four heroin offences and two counts of unlawful possession. The appellant, along with two co-defendants, was charged and faced sentencing as a street trader, receiving an effective sentence of four years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly given that he was lower in the criminal hierarchy than another offender and should have been treated more leniently. The appellant also contended that he was sentenced for fewer offences than the other offender, Mr Tran.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive, considering the disparity in their respective roles and the number of offences. The court had to determine if there was a relevant difference in culpability between the appellant and Mr Tran that warranted a different sentence, despite both being sentenced as street traders and using the same starting point of five years imprisonment.

The court found that there was no manifest disparity in the sentences imposed on the appellant and Mr Tran. The sentencing judges had proceeded on the basis that both were street traders, and there was no relevant difference in their culpability based on the facts presented. The court noted that the cases on disparity of sentence did not apply, and even if a parity approach was taken, it would not result in a marked disparity between the sentences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with all judges agreeing that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.