Dunn v R [2023] NSWCCA 1
The differences in the sentences between the applicant and the co-offender were justified by differences in custodial history, offence timing, delay, and totality considerations, such that the applicant did not have a justifiable sense of grievance; thus, the parity principle was not breached.
- Parties
- Applicant: David John Dunn; Respondent: Crown
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 January 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Sentence, Robbery Armed With Dangerous Weapon, Parity Principle, Disparity in Sentences, Totality, Delay and Sentencing, Objective Seriousness, Background of Disadvantage, Guilty Plea Discount
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David John Dunn
Applicant
Crown
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance due to disparity between his sentence and the co-offender's sentence
- 2 Whether the parity principle was breached by the difference in sentences between co-offenders
- 3 Whether delay and totality considerations affected appropriate sentencing
Ratio Decidendi
The differences in the sentences between the applicant and the co-offender were justified by differences in custodial history, offence timing, delay, and totality considerations, such that the applicant did not have a justifiable sense of grievance; thus, the parity principle was not breached.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Extend time within which to file a notice of appeal until 22 February 2022.
- Grant leave to appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment