Dunn v R [2023] NSWCCA 1

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David John Dunn

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance due to disparity between his sentence and the co-offender's sentence
  2. 2 Whether the parity principle was breached by the difference in sentences between co-offenders
  3. 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.