A sentencing judge who has presided over a lengthy trial is in the best position to assess the interrelationship between sentences of co-offenders, and appellate intervention on parity grounds requires demonstration that the disparity was not open to the sentencing judge in the exercise of a broad discretion. Where co-offenders have different but incommensurable subjective features (e.g., one has mental illness causally connected to offending while the other has youth and good character), identical sentences may be within the range of the sentencing discretion. The law recognises the potential for cognitive, emotional and physiological immaturity of young persons to contribute to offending, and youth coupled with prior good character operates as a mitigating factor of independent weight.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.