Regina v PITT [2004] NSWCCA 454

Regina v PITT [2004] NSWCCA 454

The Court was not satisfied that the applicant's sentence created an unjustifiable disparity or that justice had not been done. Although the co-offender's Form 1 matters and greater record increased his criminality, his limited intellectual functioning, the applicant's intellectual superiority and dominant role, her active participation, her absconding, and the absence of a finding of remorse justified the sentencing judge's parity conclusion. The Court also was not positively satisfied that another sentence was warranted in law and should have been passed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'parity in Sentencing' 'co Offenders' 'form 1 Matters' 'remorse' 'intellectual Disability' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'parity in Sentencing' 'co Offenders' 'form 1 Matters' 'remorse' 'intellectual Disability' 'general Deterrence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing on the applicant the same sentence as was imposed on her co-offender despite the co-offender's Form 1 matters and more extensive criminal record." 'Whether any disparity or parity issue was such that appellate intervention was warranted.' 'Whether some other sentence was warranted in law and should have been passed under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that the applicant's sentence created an unjustifiable disparity or that justice had not been done. Although the co-offender's Form 1 matters and greater record increased his criminality, his limited intellectual functioning, the applicant's intellectual superiority and dominant role, her active participation, her absconding, and the absence of a finding of remorse justified the sentencing judge's parity conclusion. The Court also was not positively satisfied that another sentence was warranted in law and should have been passed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']