Suri v DPP (Cth)

[2014] VSCA 260

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Unreasonable verdict
5. › Circumstantial evidence
6. › Whether evidence capable of establishing subject-matter of conspiracy was border controlled precursor
7. › Whether inference available that substance intended to be imported was pseudoephedrine
8. › Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.5(1), 307.11.1
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Unreasonable verdict
5. › Conspiracy
6. › Nature of conspiracy
7. › Inference of object of conspiracy from circumstantial evidence
8. › Whether jury entitled to exclude hypotheses consistent with innocence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing principles
4. › Parity
5. › Co-offenders
6. › Whether disparity in non-parole periods justified by relevant differences between co-offenders
7. › Whether prior criminal history justified disparity in both head sentence and non-parole period
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Manifest excess
4. › Conspiracy to import commercial quantity of border controlled precursor
5. › Relevance of ill health
6. › Relevance of non-parole period as proportion of head sentence
7. › Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.11.1

Quick Take

Where the only relevant distinguishing factor between co-offenders is prior criminal history, that factor may justify a disparity in head sentences but does not necessarily justify a proportionally greater disparity in non-parole periods. A non-parole period representing almost 80% of the head sentence may offend parity where a co-offender's non-parole period represents 70% of their head sentence, if the distinguishing factor does not warrant the additional disparity.