R v Meerdink

[2010] QCA 273

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Appeal Against Sentence
4. › Grounds for Interference
5. › Parity Between Co-offenders
6. › Whether disparity between non-parole periods gave rise to justifiable sense of grievance
7. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive as result of disparity
8. › Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), ss 9(1)(a), 161B(1)
9. › Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Serious Violent Offence Declaration
4. › Interplay between mandatory declaration and parity principle
5. › Whether inevitable declaration relevant to consideration of just sentence
6. › Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B

Quick Take

The parity principle continues to apply where a serious violent offence declaration under s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) applies to one co-offender but not the other, but significant differences in criminal history, remorse, plea, and rehabilitation prospects can justify the resulting disparity in non-parole periods. The observation in R v Mikaele that parity has 'little scope for operation' in such circumstances should be treated with caution.

Case Details

Citation[2010] QCA 273

CourtQCA

JurisdictionQueensland

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.

4 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Cited by7

2022R v SmithQCA 89
2020R v MorrisonQCA 187
2018R v DangQCA 331
2018R v Dean; R v Selmes; R v PhillipsQCA 124
and 3 more after sign-in

Relies on10

2008R v DwyerQCA 117
2008R v MikaeleQCA 261
2007R v Sebo; ex parte A-G (Qld)QCA 426
2006R v McDougall & CollasQCA 365
and 6 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in