R v Bates [2001] NSWCCA 374

R v Bates [2001] NSWCCA 374

Although the applicant had a heavier criminal record and was on a recognisance, Earl was the instigator, was armed with the loaded shotgun, directed the operation, and had additional Form 1 matters. The identical sentences failed to reflect the disparity in roles and the seriousness of Earl's additional matters, producing a justified sense of grievance on parity grounds. The Court therefore intervened, confirmed the sentence on count 1, and re-sentenced the applicant on count 2 with a reduced overall sentence and non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave granted; appeal dismissed on count 1; appeal allowed on count 2; sentence on count 2 quashed and replaced with a sentence of six-and-a-half years with a non-parole period of four-and-a-half years.
Legal Topics
['attempted Armed Robbery' 'robbery With a Dangerous Weapon' 'parity in Sentencing' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'aggravating Factors' 'form 1 Matters']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['attempted Armed Robbery' 'robbery With a Dangerous Weapon' 'parity in Sentencing' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' 'aggravating Factors' 'form 1 Matters']

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 Severity of Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the identical sentences imposed on the applicant and his co-offender produced a justifiable sense of grievance on parity grounds.' "Whether the sentencing judge adequately reflected the co-offender's greater role and Form 1 matters in the sentences imposed." 'Whether the Court should intervene and re-sentence the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant had a heavier criminal record and was on a recognisance, Earl was the instigator, was armed with the loaded shotgun, directed the operation, and had additional Form 1 matters. The identical sentences failed to reflect the disparity in roles and the seriousness of Earl's additional matters, producing a justified sense of grievance on parity grounds. The Court therefore intervened, confirmed the sentence on count 1, and re-sentenced the applicant on count 2 with a reduced overall sentence and non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Application for leave granted; appeal dismissed on count 1; appeal allowed on count 2; sentence on count 2 quashed and replaced with a sentence of six-and-a-half years with a non-parole period of four-and-a-half years.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave granted.' 'The appeal in respect of count 1 be dismissed and that sentence confirmed, that is, a fixed period of imprisonment of two-and-a-half years, commencing from 10 September 1999 and expiring on 9 March 2002.' 'In respect of count 2, the appeal is allowed and the sentence quashed, and...