A non-parole period of three-quarters of the head sentence for a youthful offender serving a first sentence of imprisonment is at the top of the normal range and invites scrutiny, but is not necessarily manifestly excessive where the offending is extremely serious and rehabilitation prospects are poor. The parity principle does not require reduction of an otherwise appropriate sentence merely because a co-offender received a manifestly inadequate sentence; the question is whether a fully informed right-thinking person would regard the disparity as unjust. The parity principle does not strictly apply between offenders who are not co-offenders.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.