R v Le

The respondent, the Crown, sought an order refusing leave to the applicant, Le, to appeal against his sentence. Le was found guilty following a trial of conspiring to import and traffic a commercial quantity of methamphetamine. Although the exact quantity of the drug was not able to be ascertained, the sentencing judge found that the quantity was significant. Le was sentenced to imprisonment. Le sought leave to appeal against the sentence, contending it was manifestly excessive. The primary issue for the court was whether the imprecision of the quantity of the drug involved meant that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive when compared to sentences in other cases.

The court considered the nature of the offence and the principle that each case must be assessed on its own facts. The court held that although the exact quantity of the drug was not able to be determined, there was no doubt that the quantity was significant. The court further held that the principle of parity, which requires sentences to be consistent with those imposed in similar cases, did not require the court to disregard the imprecision of the quantity. The court noted that the principle of parity is not an absolute rule and may be displaced where there are substantial and compelling circumstances that justify a departure from the range of sentences imposed in similar cases. In this case, the court found that the imprecision of the quantity did not constitute a substantial and compelling circumstance that would justify a departure from the range of sentences imposed in similar cases.

The court further held that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences imposed for similar offences. The court noted that the sentence was not excessive when compared to sentences imposed in other cases where the quantity of the drug was not precisely determined. The court also noted that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the appeal against sentence should be refused.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.