Stokke v WA

[2015] WASCA 131

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Co-offenders in common criminal enterprise
5. › Whether disparity in total effective sentences gave rise to objectively justifiable sense of grievance
6. › Comparison of total effective sentences where co-offenders convicted of different but related offences
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 7, s 378, s 562(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Manifest excess
4. › Individual sentences
5. › Whether sentence unreasonable or plainly unjust
6. › Stealing as aider
7. › Accessory after the fact of arson
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 378, s 562(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Totality principle
4. › First limb
5. › Whether total effective sentence bore proper relationship to overall criminality
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Accessory after the fact
4. › Factors relevant to sentencing
5. › Whether sentencing judge sentenced on basis of principal offence rather than accessory offence
6. › R v De Simoni principle

Quick Take

Where co-offenders are convicted of different but related offences arising from a common criminal enterprise, the parity principle may require comparison of total effective sentences rather than merely the sentences for the common offences. A disparity of 20 months between total effective sentences of 3 years and 4 years 8 months was insufficient where the co-offender's overall criminality was much greater, including numerous additional serious offences, a worse criminal history, and the role of principal offender.