Ho v R [2013] NSWCCA 174

The difference in non-parole period ratios between Ms Ho and the co-offender was justified by the more serious nature of Ms Ho's offending and her additional offences. The sentencing judge's finding of special circumstances was appropriately exercised and the resulting periods of parole supervision aligned with legislative limitations and the offenders' rehabilitation needs. No error or breach of the parity principle was established.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 29 July 2013
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Hearing on Merit
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: ['sentence Appeals' 'parity Principle' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'drug Offences']

['criminal Law'] ['sentence Appeals' 'parity Principle' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'drug 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

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Hearing on Merit

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the non-parole period in a manner that offended the parity principle between co-offenders' 'Whether special circumstances justified a different non-parole ratio']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

['Leave to appeal out of time is granted.' 'Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']