R v Schultz [2002] NSWCCA 462

R v Schultz [2002] NSWCCA 462

The sentencing judge erred in equating the applicant and Nasrallah for parity, as Nasrallah played a leading role and had more and graver offences taken into account, while the applicant had a minor and old record and a less significant role. A justifiable sense of grievance existed, requiring a reduction in the applicant’s sentence to reflect these differences, although the seriousness of the offence required a substantial sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence below quashed and substituted with reduced sentence.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'parity Principle' 'plea of Guilty' 'detain Person With Intent for Advantage' 'aggravated Robbery' 'form 1 Offences']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'parity Principle' 'plea of Guilty' 'detain Person With Intent for Advantage' 'aggravated Robbery' 'form 1 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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive or failed to observe the parity principle between co-offenders' 'Whether special circumstances justified the reduction of the non-parole period' 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance due to equal sentencing with a co-offender who played a greater role and had extra offences taken into account']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in equating the applicant and Nasrallah for parity, as Nasrallah played a leading role and had more and graver offences taken into account, while the applicant had a minor and old record and a less significant role. A justifiable sense of grievance existed, requiring a reduction in the applicant’s sentence to reflect these differences, although the seriousness of the offence required a substantial sentence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence below quashed and substituted with reduced sentence.

Orders

  • ["Applicant's sentence below quashed." 'Applicant sentenced to imprisonment for four years from 6 September 2001 to 5 September 2005.' 'Non-parole period fixed at two years and three months from 6 September 2001 to 5 December 2003.']