Court of Appeal (WA)|2013-05-03|Before: Lure P, Buss JA, Mazza JA

The application to adduce additional evidence is granted.
Leave to appeal on ground 2 is refused.
Leave to appeal on ground 3 is granted.
The appeal is allowed.
The orders made by Birmingham DCJ stand, save that the recognisance release order be varied so that the appellant is released after serving 7 months' imprisonment.

205 In respect of Sandra's appeal, CACR 232 of 2012, I would make the following orders:

DE FARIA -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2013] WASCA 116 (3 May 2013)

Barry v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 175

Bick v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 408

Coombe v The Queen [2009] WASCA 105

De Hollander v The Queen [2012] WASCA 127

Deakin v The Queen [1984] HCA 31; (1984) 58 ALJR 367

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Parfrey [2010] VSCA 212

Evans v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 349

Gulyas v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 263; (2007) 178 A Crim R 539

Ho v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 108

Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616

Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665

McGuiness v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 80

Morris v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 47

Nicolaides v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 199

Norton v The Queen [2003] WASCA 86

Payne v The Queen [2010] WASCA 177

Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610

Pedersen v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 175

Pennington v McLean [2008] TASSC 4

Petrelis v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 235

R v Desborough [2010] QCA 297

R v Lovel [2007] QCA 281

R v Newton [2010] QCA 101

R v Schultz [2008] NSWCCA 199

R v Thomson [2009] SASC 237

Ralph v Nawrojee [2003] WASCA 5

Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246

Sanchet v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2006] NSWCCA 291

The State of Western Australia v Hyder [2011] WASCA 256

The State of Western Australia v Munda [2012] WASCA 164

Thomas v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 313

Vagh v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 17

Wheeler v The Queen [No 2] [2010] WASCA 105

Whyte v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2008] SASC 310

Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82

Worthington v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 72; (2005) 152 A Crim R 58

Yarak v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 298

The parity principle is based upon the norm of equality before the law which requires, so far as the law permits, that like cases be treated alike and that there be different outcomes where there are relevant differences: Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462 [28] (French CJ, Crennan & Kiefel JJ).

Whether the parity principle has been infringed does not depend upon a finding that the sentence in question is manifestly excessive. It depends upon whether, objectively speaking, the disparity (or lack of it) gives rise to a justifiable sense of grievance: Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 154 CLR 606, 609 - 610 (Gibbs CJ).

What is required is a comparison of the sentence imposed on each offender and an evaluation of their involvement in the commission of the offence and their antecedents: MGM v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 24 [43] (Mazza JA, McLure P & Buss JA agreeing) [55] - [57].

DE FARIA -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2013] WASCA 116 (3 May 2013)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (3 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (58)

DE FARIA -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2013] WASCA 116 (3 May 2013)