R v Cunha; R v Rosso Bernardo

The applicants, Cunha and Rosso Bernardo, appealed against their sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland, with Cunha sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and Bernardo sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and six months. Both applicants were convicted of drug importation offences. Cunha pleaded guilty to importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, while Bernardo pleaded guilty to importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug. The applicants argued that their sentences were manifestly excessive and did not properly take into account various mitigating factors. They further argued that Bernardo's sentence should have been aligned with Cunha's due to the principle of parity between co-offenders.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account all relevant factors, including the applicants' guilty pleas, lack of criminal history, remorse, prospects for rehabilitation, voluntary work, and personal circumstances. The court also considered whether the principle of parity between co-offenders should have been applied, and if Bernardo's sentence should have been more lenient given the similarity of the offences and the fact that Cunha received a lesser sentence despite pleading guilty to an offence with a lower maximum penalty.

The court found that the sentences imposed on both applicants were not manifestly excessive and were within the range suggested by comparable cases. The sentencing judge had taken into account all relevant factors at the time of sentencing, including the applicants' personal circumstances and voluntary work. The court further found that the principle of parity was not applicable in this case, as the sentencing judge had appropriately addressed the differences between the two offenders, and Bernardo's offending was objectively more serious than Cunha's. Therefore, the applicants' appeals against their sentences were dismissed.

The orders of the court were that the applications for leave to appeal against the sentences were refused in both cases. Specifically, in CA No 88 of 2016 (Cunha), the application was refused, and in CA No 107 of 2016 (Rosso Bernardo), the application was also refused. The judges agreed with the reasons of Morrison JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.