COLEMAN v REGINA [2009] NSWCCA 7

COLEMAN v REGINA [2009] NSWCCA 7

The parity ground failed because there was no true parity between the applicant's offences and his father's offences, the father had additional substantive offences while the applicant had a Form 1 matter, the father's sentence was affected by totality, and the father in any event received longer sentences on the common counts. In light of the seriousness of the arson-related offending and the need for specific and general deterrence, the sentences imposed on the applicant were not shown to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance and no lesser sentence was warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed by the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
["disparity Between Co Offenders' Sentences" 'parity Principle' 'totality Principle' 'malicious Damage to Property by Fire' 'specific and General Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ["disparity Between Co Offenders' Sentences" 'parity Principle' 'totality Principle' 'malicious Damage to Property by Fire' 'specific and 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed by the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance when compared with the sentences imposed on his co-offender and father, Anthony Coleman.' "Whether the overall sentencing outcome was appropriate having regard to the applicant's role, the father's role, the different offences, totality, and the seriousness of the offences."]

Ratio Decidendi

The parity ground failed because there was no true parity between the applicant's offences and his father's offences, the father had additional substantive offences while the applicant had a Form 1 matter, the father's sentence was affected by totality, and the father in any event received longer sentences on the common counts. In light of the seriousness of the arson-related offending and the need for specific and general deterrence, the sentences imposed on the applicant were not shown to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance and no lesser sentence was warranted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']