R v Boney [2001] NSWCCA 432

R v Boney [2001] NSWCCA 432

Although the original sentence was lenient when assessed against the applicant's criminality, criminal history and parole status, the sentencing judge should have paid some regard to the co-offender's Children's Court sentence. Having regard to the co-offender's blemished record, conditional liberty, role in the offence, similar background and age, but also to the applicant's greater culpability and the need for a custodial sentence, the Court intervened only to a limited extent on parity grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Sentence below quashed. Applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'parity' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' "co Offender Sentenced in Children's Court" 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['armed Robbery' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'parity' 'justifiable Sense of Grievance' "co Offender Sentenced in Children's Court" 'non Parole Period']

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 From Sentence Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant should be reduced on parity grounds because his co-offender received 100 hours community service after four months detention pending sentence in the Children's Court." 'Whether the applicant was left with a justifiable sense of grievance despite his longer criminal history, parole status, greater role in menacing the victim, and history of substance abuse.' "Whether it was appropriate to compare sentences where one co-offender was dealt with in the Children's Court and the other as an adult."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the original sentence was lenient when assessed against the applicant's criminality, criminal history and parole status, the sentencing judge should have paid some regard to the co-offender's Children's Court sentence. Having regard to the co-offender's blemished record, conditional liberty, role in the offence, similar background and age, but also to the applicant's greater culpability and the need for a custodial sentence, the Court intervened only to a limited extent on parity grounds.

Court Disposition

Sentence below quashed. Applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['The sentence below is quashed.' 'Taking into account the matter in the form 1, the applicant is sentenced for the offence on the indictment to a term of imprisonment for two and a half years to date from 12 August 2000 and to expire on 11 February 2003.' 'A non-parole period of one year three months is specified,...