L-appellant jirreferi ghas-sentenza moghtija mill-Qorti Kriminali fit-22 ta' Mejju 2003 fil-kawza fl-ismijiet Ir-Repubblika ta' Malta vs Noaman Emhemmed Ramadan El-Arnauti . Ighid li f'dik il-kawza, fejn il-kwantita` ta' raza elevata kienet sostanzjalment akbar mill-kwantita` elevata f'dan il-kaz ul-akkuzi ammessi f'dik il-kawza kienu identici ghal dawk f'din il-kawza, il-piena kienet ta' ghaxarsnin prigunerija u multa ta' Lm17,000, oltre l-hlas ta' l-ispejjez peritali; ghalhekk m'hemmx proporzjonalita` bejn il-piena f'dak il-kaz u l-piena f'dan il-kaz.
Din il-Qorti tirreferi l-ewwelnett ghal dak li jikkummenta Archbold, f'Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 2003 (para. 5-174,p. 579) dwar il-pozizzjoni fl-Ingilterra:
"Where an offender has received a sentence which is not open to criticism when considered in isolation, but which is significantly more severe than has been imposed on his accomplice, and there is no reason for the differentiation, the Court of Appeal may reduce the sentence, but only if the disparity is serious. The current formulation of the testhas been stated in the form of the question: "would right-thinking members of the public, with fullknowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances, learning of this sentence consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice?" (per Lawton L.J. in R. v. Fawcett, 5 Cr. App.R.(S) 158 C.A.). The court will not make comparisons with sentences passed in the Crown Courts in cases unconnected with that of the appellant (see R. v. Large, 3 Cr.App.R.(S) 80, C.A.). There is someauthority for the view that disparity will be entertained as a ground of appeal only in relation tosentences passed on different offenders on the same occasion: see R.v. Stroud, 65 Cr. App.R. 150, C.A. It appears to have been ignored in more recent decisions, such as R. v. Wood, 5 Cr.App.R.(S) 381.C.A., Fawcett, ante, and Broadbridge, ante. The present position seems to be that the court will entertain submissions based on disparity of sentence between offenders involved in the same case, irrespective of whether they were sentenced on the same occasion or by the same judge, so long as the test stated in Fawcett is satisfied" (enfazi tal-Qorti).
Din il-Qorti taqbel ma' dan l-insenjament . L-appellant hawn qieghed jaghmel referenza ghal proceduri li mhumiex konnessi mal-proceduri istitwiti kontra tieghu. Filwaqt li din il-Qorti taqbel li ghandu jkun hemm proporzjonalita` u relattivita` fil-pieni f'kazijiet analogi, fil-fatt kull kaz ghandu l-fattispecie tieghu u anke kieku kellujsir paragun bejn dan il-kaz u l-kaz citat mill-appellant, jirrizultaw cirkostanzi differenti.