R v Colleen Halls and Francis Halls

The applicant, Francis Halls, has a justifiable sense of grievance by virtue of the disparity between the sentence imposed upon him and that imposed upon his co-offender 25 The submission which is made on behalf of the applicant, Francis Halls is that rather than receive the same sentence as his wife did, he should have received a lesser sentence given that he was convicted of only one offence whereas his wife was a co-offender in respect of that offence as well as having committed eight other offences. In other words it is submitted that he entertains, in the result, a justifiable sense of grievance in relation to the sentence imposed upon him. See Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606. 26 Judge Shadbolt observed that although Mr Halls only committed one offence "he probably in all cases benefited" from the commission of the offences by his wife. That may well be an available inference from the material. Nevertheless I am satisfied that the objective criminality on the part of Mrs Hall was on any view of the matter rather more significant than that displayed by her husband. Given that there was no other basis for distinguishing their respective cases in relation to either their conduct or antecedents, it is my view that this is a case in which the principles enunciated in Lowe v The Queen have application. As Brennan J observed in that case "the imposition of comparable sentences upon co-offenders whose respective conduct and antecedents warrant disparate sentences is unjust" (at 617). Not surprisingly counsel for the respondent all but conceded that this ground of Appeal should succeed. Accordingly in my view it is appropriate for a modest adjustment to be made to the sentence imposed upon Francis Hall. 27 The orders I would propose are as follows: