Narayan v R [2022] NSWCCA 163

Narayan v R [2022] NSWCCA 163

The Applicant did not establish unjustifiable disparity. A parity appeal required acceptance of the co-offender's sentence and the findings on which it was based, so the Applicant could not go behind Wass SC DCJ's finding that Al Qatrani's role was at about the same level as the Applicant's. The difference between the Applicant's undiscounted sentence and Al Qatrani's sentence was explained by subjective factors in Al Qatrani's case, including mental health disorders and significant delay while on remand. Although the Applicant and Al Qatrani were convicted of different offences, the sentencing findings showed no material difference in culpability or knowledge sufficient to create...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parity Principle' 'co Offenders' 'disparity Between Sentences' 'sentence Appeal' 'different Offences Charged Against Co Offenders' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['parity Principle' 'co Offenders' 'disparity Between Sentences' 'sentence Appeal' 'different Offences Charged Against Co Offenders' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance by reason of the sentence imposed on co-offender Imad Al Qatrani.' "Whether, on a parity ground, the Applicant could impugn findings made in the co-offender's sentencing judgment about the co-offender's role." "Whether the difference between the Applicant's undiscounted sentence and Al Qatrani's sentence was unjustified given the Applicant's guilty plea." 'Whether the different offences charged against the Applicant and Al Qatrani, and differences in knowledge of the drugs, established unjustifiable disparity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not establish unjustifiable disparity. A parity appeal required acceptance of the co-offender's sentence and the findings on which it was based, so the Applicant could not go behind Wass SC DCJ's finding that Al Qatrani's role was at about the same level as the Applicant's. The difference between the Applicant's undiscounted sentence and Al Qatrani's sentence was explained by subjective factors in Al Qatrani's case, including mental health disorders and significant delay while on remand. Although the Applicant and Al Qatrani were convicted of different offences, the sentencing findings showed no material difference in culpability or knowledge sufficient to create...

Court Disposition

Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal until 22 January 2022.' 'Grant leave to appeal the sentence imposed by Norton SC DCJ on 27 July 2018.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']