Where co-offenders are sentenced by different judges, an applicant mounting a parity argument is 'stuck' with the contrasting findings of fact made by each judge, and the appellate court will not go behind those findings. Parity comparisons must be made on starting point sentences (i.e., with utilitarian discounts removed) to compare 'like for like'. A submission that 'undue weight' was given to a sentencing factor does not comfortably engage the House v The King framework, as questions of weight are evaluative judgments for sentencing judges.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.