Ya v R

The Court held that bail conditions requiring an offender to live at home with family, report daily, and comply with internet and travel restrictions did not amount to 'quasi-custody' warranting a sentence backdate, distinguishing Quinlin where the offender was isolated from family and suffered mental health issues. The Court further held that an offender who makes a forensic decision to apply for bail is not entitled to a sentence reduction because that decision results in a greater proportion of the sentence being served in adult rather than juvenile detention. On parity, a three-month disparity between the applicant's and co-offender AG's aggregate sentences did not give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance where AG's significantly more compelling subjective case — including Bugmy factors, substantial reduction in moral culpability, and an exceptional Youth Justice report — justified the more lenient sentence despite AG's slightly higher objective criminality.