CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction — unreasonable verdict — whether it was open for the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant knew, or believed, he was aiding or abetting an offence of the type that the co-offenders committed
SENTENCING — appeal against sentence — co-offenders — disparity between sentences — where co-offenders sentenced on different factual basis
Quick Take
1In a circumstantial complicity case under s 11.2(3)(a) of the Criminal Code (Cth), the accused's belief that they were aiding an offence of the type committed may be inferred from the totality of circumstances — including the sophistication, expense and risk of the venture, exclusive possession of an encrypted communications device, participation in counter-surveillance, and coordinated departure — without direct evidence of knowledge of the specific drug involved.
2Where co-offenders are sentenced on different factual bases because one pleaded guilty on agreed facts and another stood trial, a sentencing judge must pass sentence on the evidence before them; a party who embraced at first instance the submission that objective seriousness had 'evened out' among co-offenders will not ordinarily be permitted to resile from that concession on appeal.
3The parity principle does not require identity of sentence among co-offenders; disparity is justified where it reflects differences in subjective circumstances including criminal history, mental health, prospects of rehabilitation and breach of parole, assessed by the sentencing judge in establishing a hierarchy for parity purposes.
