1 The appellant was arraigned in the Supreme Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of murder and one count of intentionally causing serious injury. A plea was conducted and the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the count of murder and to a term of ten years' imprisonment on the count of intentionally causing serious injury. The sentencing judge directed that the appellant was to serve a term of 23 years before he was to become eligible for parole.

2 The appellant has been granted leave to appeal against the sentence.

3 The appellant and one Evangelos Goussis were enlisted by one XP to murder Lewis Moran, at the behest of gangland rivals of Moran.

4 On 31 March 2004, the appellant, his brother and Goussis drove from Geelong to Melbourne equipped with three firearms and two balaclavas. Lewis Moran was in the habit of attending the Brunswick Club, a gambling institution. The plan was that Goussis would shoot Moran while the appellant would stand at the entrance of the Club to cover his back. XP was to drive the getaway vehicle.

5 The appellant, XP and Goussis looked through the windows at the front of the Brunswick Club and saw Moran. XP waited in a car in the laneway at the rear of the Club while Goussis and the appellant, wearing coats to conceal two pistols and a shotgun, walked around to the front of the Club. As they neared the Club, they pulled balaclavas down to cover their faces. Goussis ran ahead of the appellant and bounded up the stairs of the club, carrying the shotgun, which he pointed in the direction of Lewis Moran.

6 Upon seeing Goussis, Moran turned and ran down a corridor and through the area of the Club in which there were gaming machines. Goussis caught up with him as he left the gaming machine area. Goussis shot Moran twice in the head.

7 Herbert Wrout had been standing with his friend Moran when Goussis entered the room. Wrout backed away in the direction of the appellant, who was standing in the doorway. The appellant shot Wrout in the arm and chest.

8 Goussis reappeared from the rear of the premises and joined the appellant. Together, they left the club and went to the laneway, where XP was waiting with the motor car and made their getaway.

9 Lewis Moran was killed and Herbert Wrout was severely injured. He suffered damage to his liver, kidney and lung and his spleen was removed. He was on life support for some time and stayed in intensive care for more than three weeks.

10 The appellant is 56 years' old. He had a number of prior convictions, including convictions for armed robbery, possession of a pistol, manslaughter, intentionally causing serious injury and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary.

11 The appellant had four children from a marriage. One of the children died and the remaining children are now adults. The appellant had a daughter, aged seven years, from a later relationship with another woman.

12 The appellant was born into a life of crime. His grandfather was a member of the Sydney underworld and was executed in the course of an underworld feud. The appellant's father was a notorious safe cracker. The appellant's family mixed with criminals. All of the appellant's three brothers have criminal histories.

13 The appellant left school after completing third form and commenced work as a butcher. After some ten years, the appellant ceased work as a butcher and worked on oil rigs, where he sustained a serious back injury. After a long period of rehabilitation, he returned to work in an abattoir and was injured when he was kicked by a steer, suffering broken vertebrae. The appellant has had three major operations, including a back fusion. The appellant was unable to perform physical work and, for some years, operated a two-up school. Eventually, he lost heavily and became bankrupt.

14 After serving a sentence for armed robbery, the appellant conducted a caravan park. Later he found work as a plasterer.

15 The sentencing judge found that the appellant became involved in the scheme to murder Moran at XP's urging.

16 There are two grounds of appeal. The first is that the non-parole period of the sentence is manifestly excessive. The second is that the non-parole period of the sentence is manifestly disparate with the sentences passed upon Carl Williams, Evangelos Goussis and XP.

17 Pursuant to the first ground, counsel for the appellant placed considerable emphasis upon the appellant's ill health. The appellant has for many years suffered from a number of physical and mental ailments.

18 As a result of drinking and hepatitis C, the appellant suffered oesophageal-gastric varices, neurosarcoidosis and liver cirrhosis. He also suffered from hypertension and diabetes. The appellant has mental ailments. In July 2005, he was put in an acute assessment unit in prison as a result of delirium characterised by confusion and hostility. In November 2005, the appellant lacerated his wrists and swallowed nail clippers. The next month, he was found to be disorientated, confused, delusional and experiencing auditory hallucinations. He was transferred to Thomas Embling Hospital, where he was diagnosed as suffering from delirium, with a differential diagnosis of psychosis. While his condition now appears to be stable, the prognosis of the medical specialists is guarded. There is a real prospect that the appellant will die in prison.

19 The appellant is in the protection unit in prison in order to enable his brother Keith, who is in the next door cell, to care for him.

20 The sentencing judge referred at some length to the opinions of medical specialists who treated or examined the appellant. Her Honour also expressly took into account the plea of guilty, which she took to be an indication of remorse, even though it was not made at the earliest stage.

21 A non-parole period is the minimum time that justice requires an offender to serve. Rehabilitation is an important consideration, but a non-parole period does have a penal element and must take into account general deterrence and denunciation of the crime, which, in the present case, was a planned assassination for reward conducted in a well-frequented public place.

22 In my opinion, the non-parole period was reasonably available as adequately reflecting the totality of the appellant's offending and his degree of criminality after making due allowance for the mitigating factors of the appellant's health, age and plea of guilty.

23 As to the second ground of appeal, Williams was sentenced to a term of 25 years' imprisonment for his part in the murder of Moran, while Goussis and XP received life sentences and minimum terms of 30 and 19 years respectively. The sentence imposed upon XP was, in large measure. influenced by his co-operation with the authorities as the principal Crown witness at the trial of Goussis. The minimum terms imposed upon Goussis and Faure took into account their convictions for the murder of Lewis Caine.

24 Counsel for the appellant at the plea accepted that the appellant 'falls between' XP and Goussis. His expectation was met by the minimum term imposed upon the appellant. In my opinion, the disparities between the sentences imposed upon the offenders did adequately reflect the different circumstances of each of the offenders and would not have engendered in the appellant a justified sense of grievance, that is, a sense of grievance that would have been shared by a disinterested observer.