Where an aggregate sentence is imposed on one co-offender and individual sentences on another, direct comparison for parity purposes may not be possible, and the parity principle does not require identical sentences where the constellation of subjective factors differs between co-offenders. Sentencing consistency requires consistency in the application of legal principles, not numerical equivalence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 54 later cases that cite this judgment.
26 of the 54 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.