Starting points of indicative sentences within aggregate sentences may be compared for parity purposes, but it is the aggregate sentence that must ultimately be shown to be disparate. Where a co-offender's starting point reflects a factual error by the sentencing judge, that erroneous starting point cannot be relied upon to ground a parity claim, as this would compound rather than correct the error. Parity analysis must admit of differences in evaluative judgments between sentencing judges and a degree of flexibility in outcomes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.