Mai v The Queen

[2017] VSCA 1

Victorian 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 with different personal circumstances
5. › Whether disparity in sentences sufficient to reflect differences
6. › Whether community correction order properly recognised as punitive
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Comparison of sentence components
5. › Whether non-parole period of co-offender may be considered
6. › Whether s 5(2AA)(a) of Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) precludes consideration
7. › Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 5(2AA)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Manifest excess
4. › Theft
5. › Well-planned theft of goods valued at $161,105
6. › Whether sentence within available range
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Community correction orders
4. › Punitive nature
5. › Whether CCO properly recognised as punitive for entirety of its term
6. › Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Quick Take

Section 5(2AA)(a) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) does not prevent a court from considering a co-offender's non-parole period when assessing whether the parity principle has been infringed, because such consideration is not 'in sentencing an offender' but in evaluating whether equal justice has been achieved. This applies even where only one co-offender received a non-parole period. When applying the parity principle, a community correction order must be recognised as punitive for its entire term, and the total effective burden of a combination sentence (imprisonment plus CCO) must be compared with the co-offender's sentence.