The need to preserve parity between co-offenders may constitute 'special circumstances' under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) warranting a departure from the statutory ratio between non-parole period and total term, but this is not a mandatory requirement in every case of disparity. The observation in Tatana v R is a reminder to sentencing judges to be vigilant, not a rule requiring reduction of the non-parole period whenever there is a difference between co-offenders' sentences. Substantial differences in personal circumstances (criminal record, rehabilitation prospects, remorse, assistance to authorities, discount for plea) can adequately explain significant disparities in both head sentences and non-parole periods.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 28 later cases that cite this judgment.
15 of the 28 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.