Gray v R [2021] NSWCCA 219

Gray v R [2021] NSWCCA 219

Although the original sentence was not shown to be manifestly excessive, the appellant and Mr Dungay had identical criminality in the relevant offences and materially similar subjective circumstances. The additional material relied on when Mr Dungay was re-sentenced was not significant enough to justify a different sentence. The principle of parity and equal justice therefore required the appellant's sentence to be quashed and the same aggregate and indicative sentences imposed as were imposed on Mr Dungay by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Allowed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; appellant re-sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' 'equal Justice' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'robbery in Company' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal in Company' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['parity Principle' 'equal Justice' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence' 'indicative Sentences' 'robbery in Company' 'aggravated Break, Enter and Steal in Company' 'form 1 Offences']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed in the District Court was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the disparity between the appellant's sentence and the reduced sentence imposed on his co-offender in Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209 gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance." 'Whether the appellant should be re-sentenced to the same indicative and aggregate sentences as the co-offender.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the original sentence was not shown to be manifestly excessive, the appellant and Mr Dungay had identical criminality in the relevant offences and materially similar subjective circumstances. The additional material relied on when Mr Dungay was re-sentenced was not significant enough to justify a different sentence. The principle of parity and equal justice therefore required the appellant's sentence to be quashed and the same aggregate and indicative sentences imposed as were imposed on Mr Dungay by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; District Court sentence quashed; appellant re-sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Sentence imposed on the appellant in the District Court on 27 May 2019 is quashed.' 'The appellant is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 years commencing 25 July 2017 and expiring on 24 July 2027 with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months to...