His Honour also noted that, as the evidence had shown, the applicant had led a solitary life and was now almost entirely alone, with few friends who would visit him in prison.
7 Taking all of the matters advanced on behalf of the applicant into account, his Honour the learned sentencing judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a period of six years, with a non-parole period of three-and-a-half years. It has been conceded in argument on this application that that was a lower than normal non-parole period.
8 The first ground of the application for leave to appeal against sentence is that the head sentence was manifestly excessive. For this Court to be satisfied that that ground was made out, it would have to be demonstrated that the term of imprisonment imposed was obviously outside the range of sentences reasonably open to the sentencing judge so as to demonstrate that the sentencing discretion had not been properly exercised.
9 In my opinion, that submission is untenable. There is nothing in the circumstances to suggest that this sentence was otherwise than well within the range reasonably open to a judge sentencing this offender for this serious offence. I would therefore reject that first ground.
10 The second ground advanced is that the learned judge fell into error in failing to ensure proper parity between the sentence imposed on this applicant and the sentence previously imposed on the courier who, as his Honour noted, had pleaded guilty. His Honour addressed the question of parity squarely and carefully in remarks which it is unnecessary to rehearse in these reasons. It is sufficient to say that I see nothing in his Honour's approach to the question of parity which is suggestive of error and I would also reject that ground of the application.
11 For these reasons, in my opinion, the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.