A sentence three times more severe than that imposed on a co-offender of similar culpability constitutes appellable disparity where the differences between the offenders do not adequately explain the discrepancy. The parity principle does not require total concurrency merely because a co-offender's sentences were served concurrently with sentences for unrelated offences in another jurisdiction; it requires only a lesser measure of cumulation than would otherwise have been appropriate. Parole eligibility dates may legitimately be compared for parity purposes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.