R v Maksoud

The case of R v Maksoud involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to various drug-related offences, appealing against his sentence. The applicant was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for unlawful trafficking in methylamphetamine, two years for possessing phones used in connection with drug trafficking, and five years for possessing the drug, with a drug offence certificate issued. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, asserting that insufficient allowance was made for his youth, the 376 days of pre-sentence custody were not considered, and the requirement that a co-offender serve at least 80% of his sentence should not influence his own sentence.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant's appeal hinged on three main points: the influence of his youth, the consideration of pre-sentence custody, and the relevance of his co-offender's sentence in determining his own. The court examined the principle of parity in sentencing and whether it should be disregarded if it resulted in an excessive sentence for the more culpable offender. The court referenced R v Crossley, where it was held that the requirement for a co-offender to serve 80% of their sentence should not affect the sentencing of the greater offender. The applicant's counsel argued that this principle applied to their case, and the co-offender's sentence should not influence the applicant's sentence.

The court found that the applicant's sentence was indeed excessive, particularly in light of the influence that parity with the co-offender's sentence had on the original sentence. The court granted leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal, substituting the sentence on Count 1 with nine years' imprisonment, with parole eligibility set at 13 February 2019. The serious violent offence declaration was set aside, but the sentences on the other indictments were confirmed.