Tran v The Queen

The appellant, Tran, appealed against his sentence for drug supply offences. The High Court of Australia considered the appeal and the appropriate sentence in line with parity principles. The court was required to determine if the sentencing disparity between Tran and his co-offender, Lo, was justified and if it warranted a modification to the sentence. The court's task was to balance the principle of parity with the individual circumstances of the appellant and the need for an appropriate sentence.

The court acknowledged that an arithmetic comparison of the sentences was not suitable. However, it recognised that the disparity between the sentences could not be entirely disregarded. The court considered the principle from Lowe v The Queen, which requires that sentences for similar offences should not differ significantly. Despite Tran's greater culpability, the court found that the substantial disparity in the sentences imposed on him and Lo was unjustifiable. The marked difference in their sentences for supplying the same quantity of heroin led the court to conclude that Tran had a justifiable sense of grievance.

The court concluded that the disparity in sentences was so significant that it reduced what would otherwise be an appropriate sentence. The original sentence was deemed inappropriate in light of the disparity, and a more lenient sentence would be a reproach to the administration of justice. The court granted the appeal and substituted a new sentence with a non-parole period of four years and three months and a balance of term of two years and nine months. The court also noted that the sentence proposed was at the cusp of the court's discretion to intervene and that it verged on being inadequate despite the discounts for the plea and assistance. The judges Howie, Beazley, and Adams concurred in the decision and the proposed sentence.