Siskopoulos v The State of Western Australia

In the case of Siskopoulos v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, Anastasis Siskopoulos, sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it infringed the parity principle. The appellant was convicted of attempting to possess a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply to another, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA). The appellant's co-offender, Peter Kezkiropoulos, was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 24 years and 1 month's imprisonment, while the appellant was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment. The appellant argued that there was insufficient disparity between the sentences imposed on him and Kezkiropoulos, given the differentiating circumstances that favoured his case.

The Court of Appeal considered the parity principle and whether the sentence imposed on the appellant infringed upon it. The principle aims to ensure appropriate consistency in the sentencing of co-offenders, and the court must evaluate and take into account all factors relevant to the offenders, the offences they have committed, and the sentences they have received. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately recognised the disparity in the circumstances and offending of the co-offenders by imposing a starting point of 21 years for Kezkiropoulos and a 16-year sentence for the appellant. The court also found that the sentencing judge had taken into account the totality principle, which affected the sentence imposed on Kezkiropoulos but not the appellant.

After examining the circumstances of the co-offenders, the court concluded that the appellant's 16-year sentence did not reflect a failure to properly apply the parity principle. The court could not say that, in the proper exercise of her sentencing discretion, the sentencing judge failed to bring the relevant matters to account when addressing the parity principle. Therefore, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had appropriately applied the parity principle in sentencing the appellant and his co-offender. The differences in the sentences imposed on the co-offenders reflected the disparity in their circumstances and offending, as well as the need to bring to account the prior offending of Kezkiropoulos. The court found no failure to properly apply the parity principle, and the appeal was dismissed.