Tregenza v The Queen

[2015] VSCA 163

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
5. › Whether alibi evidence constituted solid obstacle to guilty verdict
6. › Sufficiency of identification evidence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Jury directions
5. › Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct jury
6. › Jury Directions Act 2013 (Vic), s 15
7. › Whether direction necessary to avoid substantial miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity
4. › Co-offender's sentence reduced on separate appeal
5. › Whether necessary to maintain same relativity between co-offenders as fixed by sentencing judge
6. › Re-sentencing on appeal

Quick Take

On a parity re-sentencing following a co-offender's successful sentence appeal, the appellate court is not bound to maintain the same relativity between co-offenders' sentences as fixed by the sentencing judge. However, where the sentencing judge presided over the trial of both co-offenders and had the benefit of full pleas, the distinction drawn should generally be maintained absent identifiable error. Where the co-offender's reduction was based on mitigating circumstances personal to that co-offender alone, the same differential need not be preserved.