Parkinson v R [2021] NSWCCA 98
The assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence was open to the sentencing judge on the evidence, and no material error or misapplication of principle has been established. The differences between sentences imposed on the applicant and co-offenders were justified based on the circumstances and reflected the proper application of the parity principle; no justifiable sense of grievance arises.
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert Parkinson; Crown: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 May 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Sentence, Drug Offences, Supply Prohibited Drug, Large Commercial Quantity, Sentencing, Parity, Objective Seriousness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Parkinson
Applicant
Regina
Crown
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence
- 2 Whether there was a parity error in comparison to co-offenders
Ratio Decidendi
The assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence was open to the sentencing judge on the evidence, and no material error or misapplication of principle has been established. The differences between sentences imposed on the applicant and co-offenders were justified based on the circumstances and reflected the proper application of the parity principle; no justifiable sense of grievance arises.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal against sentence on ground 1 refused
- Leave to appeal against sentence on ground 2 granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment