King v R [2012] NSWCCA 185

King v R [2012] NSWCCA 185

There was no error in the sentencing judge’s approach to the parity principle, nor in the setting of the applicant's non-parole period; differences in charges, roles, and offence periods justify the disparity in sentences. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused as the proposed appeal lacked merit.

Parties
Applicant: Anthony Edward King; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appeal, Sentencing, Parity Principle, Drug Importation
Criminal Law Appeal Sentencing Parity Principle Drug Importation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Edward King

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-parole period imposed upon the applicant was disparate to that imposed upon co-offenders beyond what was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the parity principle when setting the non-parole period
  3. 3 Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error in the sentencing judge’s approach to the parity principle, nor in the setting of the applicant's non-parole period; differences in charges, roles, and offence periods justify the disparity in sentences. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused as the proposed appeal lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence refused