Vi v The Queen

Vi, the appellant, sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Vi was found guilty of attempting to traffic a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, specifically 209 kg of pure methamphetamine. The trial judge sentenced Vi to 13 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years. The co-offender was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centred around whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, whether the principles of parity had been infringed, and whether there was an error in the determination of the non-parole period. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether any errors identified were reasonably arguable and whether the complaints of manifest excess were reasonably arguable. The appellant argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive, that parity principles had been infringed, and that the non-parole period was incorrectly fixed.

The Court of Appeal found that the errors alleged by the appellant were not reasonably arguable. It held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of parity. The Court concluded that the complaints of manifest excess were not reasonably arguable. Consequently, the appeals against the sentences were dismissed, and the appellant’s applications for leave to appeal were refused.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.