Higgins v WA

(2019) 54 WAR 342; [2019] WASCA 78

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Guilty plea discount
4. › Section 9AA Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
5. › Whether discount manifestly inadequate
6. › First reasonable opportunity to plead guilty
7. › Strength of prosecution case relevant to discount
8. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 9AA
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Co-offenders sentenced for common and unrelated offences
5. › Whether parity comparison confined to total effective sentences or extends to individual sentences for common offences
6. › Whether disparity gives rise to justifiable sense of grievance
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Interaction with totality principle
5. › Multiple offences
6. › Whether totality adjustments to individual sentences affect parity analysis
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › Sentence appeal
4. › Standard of appellate review
5. › Discretionary sentencing decisions
6. › House v The King principles
7. › Whether error demonstrated in exercise of sentencing discretion

Quick Take

The parity principle does not confine comparison exclusively to total effective sentences when co-offenders have been sentenced for both common and unrelated offences. It is open to an appellant to contend that the individual sentence for a common offence reveals a parity infringement, though the analysis must account for the influence of totality considerations on individual sentences. Earlier WASCA statements in Jardim, Tresnjo and Wong suggesting a universal rule confining comparison to total effective sentences should not be read as establishing such a rule. Separately, guilty plea discounts under s 9AA of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) of 16-18% were upheld where pleas were not at the first reasonable opportunity and the prosecution case was strong.