Humphries v R; Ponfield v R [2016] NSWCCA 86

Humphries v R; Ponfield v R [2016] NSWCCA 86

While sentencing structures varied between co-offenders (using Mill or Pearce approaches), the lack of explanation for disparity between Humphries and his co-offenders' sentences amounted to error. However, reduction of Humphries' or Ponfield's sentences to the lower effective term received by Wilson would result in sentences that were erroneously lenient, given the seriousness and circumstances of the offending. Humphries' sentence was therefore adjusted to be consistent in structure and length with that of Ponfield to achieve parity, but no change was warranted for Ponfield.

Parties
Applicant: Mark Wayne Humphries; Applicant: Wade Allan Ponfield; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (supreme Court of Nsw) Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence and Outcome
Outcome
Appeal by Humphries allowed in part; sentence quashed and substituted. Appeal by Ponfield dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Armed Robbery, Parity Principle, Principle of Totality, Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Sentencing Armed Robbery Parity Principle Principle of Totality Aggravating Circumstances

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Wayne Humphries

Applicant

Wade Allan Ponfield

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (supreme Court of Nsw) Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence and Outcome

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on Mark Humphries and Wade Ponfield failed to observe the parity principle and created a justifiable sense of grievance compared to co-offender Wilson
  2. 2 Whether 'being in company' was incorrectly regarded as both an aggravating factor and an element of the offence under s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge erred in the application of the totality principle and structure of concurrent sentences

Ratio Decidendi

While sentencing structures varied between co-offenders (using Mill or Pearce approaches), the lack of explanation for disparity between Humphries and his co-offenders' sentences amounted to error. However, reduction of Humphries' or Ponfield's sentences to the lower effective term received by Wilson would result in sentences that were erroneously lenient, given the seriousness and circumstances of the offending. Humphries' sentence was therefore adjusted to be consistent in structure and length with that of Ponfield to achieve parity, but no change was warranted for Ponfield.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Humphries allowed in part; sentence quashed and substituted. Appeal by Ponfield dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to Mark Humphries to appeal.
  • In the appeal by Mark Humphries, allow the appeal and quash the sentences imposed in the District Court.