Taysavang v R; Lee v R

The appellants, Taysavang and Lee, appealed their sentences for supplying a prohibited drug contrary to section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales. The primary issues before the court were the application of the parity principle in sentencing and the applicability of a mitigating factor under section 21A(3)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

The court considered whether the principle of parity, which requires sentences of co-offenders to be comparable, was correctly applied. It noted that one appellant’s sentence was manifestly excessive compared to the other. The court also examined the mitigating factor of whether the injury caused by the offence was not substantial because the drugs were not dispersed into the community. The court held that the mitigating factor did not apply because the drugs were seized upon arrest. Furthermore, the court reviewed whether the principle in Bugmy v The Queen applied, given the offending conduct was not impulsive wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the sentencing judge had failed to properly apply the parity principle due to the manifestly excessive disparity in sentences. It found that the mitigating factor of no substantial injury was not applicable as the drugs were seized. The court found that the principle in Bugmy did not apply because the offending was not impulsive. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for resentencing. The court's orders included a direction that the sentences be reconsidered in light of the principles discussed.