Jackson v R [2022] NSWCCA 148

Jackson v R [2022] NSWCCA 148

The disparity between the sentences imposed on the applicant and her co-offender Little was unjustifiable, as the similarities in their objective and subjective factors outweighed the differences identified by the sentencing judge. The extent of the difference in indicative sentences for common offences gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, requiring appellate intervention. The applicant's case was closer to Little's than to the two male co-offenders, and a fair application of the parity principle required reduction in the applicant's sentence.

Parties
Applicant: Gwendoline Jackson; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
Parity Principle, Appeal Against Sentence, Aggregate Sentence, Aggravated Kidnapping, Reckless Wounding, Sentencing
Criminal Law Parity Principle Appeal Against Sentence Aggregate Sentence Aggravated Kidnapping Reckless Wounding Sentencing

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gwendoline Jackson

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disparity between the sentences imposed on the applicant and her co-offender, Ms Skye Little, was unjustifiable under the parity principle

Ratio Decidendi

The disparity between the sentences imposed on the applicant and her co-offender Little was unjustifiable, as the similarities in their objective and subjective factors outweighed the differences identified by the sentencing judge. The extent of the difference in indicative sentences for common offences gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, requiring appellate intervention. The applicant's case was closer to Little's than to the two male co-offenders, and a fair application of the parity principle required reduction in the applicant's sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is allowed.