he reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained, contrary to s 428 of the Code. Secondly, the maximum penalty for the offence committed by the appellant was 7 years' imprisonment whereas the maximum penalty for the offence committed by Mr Thornley was 2 years' imprisonment and a fine of $24,000. Thirdly, the appellant was sentenced on the basis that he broke into and entered the premises of the complainant; he used a drill on the door locks of the equipment and on the ignitions of the equipment to facilitate their theft; he drove the equipment from the premises and, later, used his vehicle and a trailer he had hired to transport the equipment to an address in Baldivis; his offending was planned and premeditated; and he stole the equipment for profit. By contrast, Mr Thornley was sentenced on the basis that he 'merely' agreed to the equipment being stored in a sea container on his property. Magistrate Temby did not make a finding, and Mr Thornley made no admission, as to the length of time the equipment was stored in the sea container. It is readily apparent that the appellant's offending was significantly more culpable than Mr Thornley's. Fourthly, Mr Thornley's personal circumstances and antecedents were marginally more favourable than the appellant's.