Tomov v The Queen

The appellant, Tomov, sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it was excessive and disproportionate, and that it infringed the parity principle. The appeal against sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia. Tomov was convicted on multiple counts, including using a foreign passport that had not been issued to him, uttering counterfeit money, dealing with money that was the proceeds of crime, producing a false passport to a reporting entity, transferring currency using a false name, possession of counterfeit money, possession of proceeds of crime and possession of an electronic skimming device. The total effective sentence imposed was 4 years and 9 months' imprisonment.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that Tomov was present at offences committed by the other appellant, whether the sentencing judge erred in taking into account offences for which Tomov had not been charged, whether the sentences did not bear a proper relationship to the overall criminality, and whether the sentence imposed on Tomov infringed the parity principle. The court needed to determine whether the sentences imposed were just and whether they reflected the nature and circumstances of the offences committed.

The court held that the appeal against sentence should be allowed on ground 1, as the sentencing judge erred in taking into account offences for which Tomov had not been charged. The court found that the sentences did not bear a proper relationship to the overall criminality and that the sentence imposed on Tomov infringed the parity principle. The appeal was allowed, and Tomov was re-sentenced. The appeal against the sentence of the co-appellant was dismissed.

The court ordered that the appeal against sentence be allowed on ground 1, and Tomov was re-sentenced. The appeal against the sentence of the co-appellant was dismissed. The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted on ground 1, leave to appeal was refused on ground 2, the appeal was allowed, the appellant was re-sentenced, and the appeal of the co-appellant was dismissed.