17 Apr 2019
The court held that the joint Summary of Facts and evidence showed the applicant alone escalated the assault by kicking and stamping the frail elderly victim, causing the fatal injuries; that conduct fell outside the common intent of mere slapping and punching, justified a higher degree of blame and a 10 year sentence, and the judge did not misapportion blame between the brothers.
30 May 2014
The sentencing judge applied the correct principles, considered relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and did not err in assessing the applicant's culpability or the appropriate sentence; disparity with sentences in unrelated cases does not constitute appealable error because the parity principle is confined to co-offenders; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
21 Aug 2007
There was no rational distinction between the appellant and Lara Rath: both acted in good faith, there was no financial loss and no extra benefit to the appellant; mitigating features (guilty plea, cooperation, absence of loss) warranted the same category of sentence as Rath; therefore the fine was set aside and a conditional discharge imposed.
16 Aug 2005
Application dismissed because no unjustifiable disparity existed once all relevant facts (including prior sentences of co-defendants on related matters and differing temporal exposure) were considered; the 4-year starting point was appropriate and mitigation for delay and character had been properly applied.
30 Jun 2004
The 10 months' sentence was manifestly excessive for the offence of aiding and abetting breach of condition of stay; having regard to circumstances the appellate court adopted a 4-month starting point for this aiding and abetting offence, reduced it for plea and mitigation and substituted a final sentence of 2 months' imprisonment, allowing the appeal and setting aside the original sentence.
18 Sept 2002
The judge erred in principle by adopting the statutory maximum for the charged offence as the starting point and by taking into account prosecutorial failures to prefer more serious or additional charges; on reassessment of the applicant's role confined to the offence charged the appropriate sentence is 18 months imprisonment with no deduction for trial.
28 Aug 1996
Where a defendant fails to adduce any evidence of material breaches of interrogation rules at trial and the trial magistrate—properly addressed on admissibility—finds statements voluntary and lawfully obtained, an appellate court will not disturb that finding; sentencing for those who assist illegal immigrants should follow established policy and tariffs and will only be reduced for clear and justified reasons, including correction of unjustified disparity between co-defendants.
30 Oct 1992
The Court held that the applicants received proper sentences and cannot invoke the disparity principle because the more culpable co-defendant received a heavier sentence than they did; therefore there is no legitimate sense of grievance and no ground to interfere with the four-year sentences.
29 Nov 1990
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence, holding that the sentence of 11 years was within proper range given the gravity of an armed robbery with firearms present, the applicant's active role and criminal record, that the judge had appropriately set a starting point and applied a plea discount, that the totality principle explained any apparent disparity with co-accused, and that appeals should not be postponed for prospective cooperation absent special circumstances (such matters can be addressed later under Letters Patent).
1 Oct 1986
Conviction appeals dismissed because the cautioned statement and palmprint evidence were admissible and sufficient; sentence appeals allowed and reduced from 18 to 12 years for the two appellants because of an unjustifiable disparity with a co-offender and relevant precedent distinguishing firearms carried but not discharged.