Ho v R

Judgment 1EMMETT JA: This proceeding is an application for leave to appeal against sentence imposed on the applicant by the District Court on 27 July 2012. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and one count of knowingly allowing premises to be used as drug premises, exposing a child to prohibited drugs. The offences are created by the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine years, comprising a non-parole period of six years and a balance of term of three years. The only ground of appeal pressed was that the sentencing judge erred in determining the non-parole period on the basis that the sentence offended the parity principle. 2The applicant pleaded guilty to the offences in the Local Court and a co-offender was dealt with on the same day, who also pleaded guilty to the offences with which he was charged. Both the applicant and the co-offender received a 25% discount for early pleas of guilty. 3The applicant faced the more serious charges. The charges reflected her role as a broker, as distinct from the co-offender, whose role was that of a courier. The applicant contended that the disparity between the respective ratios of the non-parole period to the total term of her sentence and the co-offender's sentence left her with a justifiable sense of grievance and that the sentencing judge erred in that regard. 4I have read the proposed reasons of Schmidt J in draft form. I agree with her Honour that the sentences imposed on the applicant and the co-offender reflect the differences in the degree of their culpability for the conduct for which they were sentenced and that the result does not reveal error on the part of the sentencing judge. Rather, the result reflects the differences in the respective circumstances of the applicant and the co-offender. 5I agree, for the reasons proposed by Schmidt J, that leave to appeal out of time should be granted, that leave to appeal against the sentence be granted and that the appeal be dismissed. 6FULLERTON J: I agree with Schmidt J. 7SCHMIDT J: Hue Pham Ho seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon her by Arnott DCJ on 27 July 2012. She had pleaded guilty to one count of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely 352.2 grams of heroin, under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse And Trafficking Act 1985 and one count of knowingly allowing premises to be used as drug premises, exposing a child to prohibited drugs under s 36Y(2) of that Act. 8In sentencing Ms Ho his Honour also took into account four charges on a Form 1 under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, namely: