OM v R, MH v R, AA v R, AS v R [2009] NSWCCA 267

OM v R, MH v R, AA v R, AS v R [2009] NSWCCA 267

The marked disparity between the non-parole periods imposed upon the applicants and that imposed on their co-offender KD was not warranted by differences in culpability or personal circumstances and gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, warranting appellate intervention to reduce the non-parole periods for the applicants to 9 months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence
Outcome
Appeals allowed; non-parole periods reduced.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'parity' 'sexual Assault Offences' 'juvenile Justice']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'parity' 'sexual Assault Offences' 'juvenile Justice']

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 / Appeal From Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether disparity in sentences imposed on co-offenders gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance warranting appellate intervention']

Ratio Decidendi

The marked disparity between the non-parole periods imposed upon the applicants and that imposed on their co-offender KD was not warranted by differences in culpability or personal circumstances and gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, warranting appellate intervention to reduce the non-parole periods for the applicants to 9 months.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; non-parole periods reduced.

Orders

  • ['In respect of AA: The non-parole period is quashed and a non-parole period of 9 months is imposed commencing 30 January 2009 and expiring 29 October 2009; applicant to serve sentence in a juvenile detention centre.' 'In respect of AS: The non-parole period is quashed and a non-parole period of 9 months is imposed...