Little v The Queen; Holt v The Queen

[2011] VSCA 155

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Parity principle
4. › Co-offenders jointly presented
5. › Whether sentencing judge justified in differentiating between co-offenders on basis of criminal history and prospects of rehabilitation
6. › Whether disparity in sentences would engender justifiable sense of grievance
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Manifest excess
5. › Whether sentence outside range reasonably open to sentencing judge

Quick Take

A sentencing judge is justified in imposing a higher sentence on a co-offender with a significantly worse criminal record and poorer prospects of rehabilitation than a co-offender who committed more offences, without violating the parity principle. The parity principle does not require identical or near-identical sentences where co-offenders differ materially in criminal history, rehabilitation prospects, and the need for specific deterrence and community protection.