"Where two or more offenders are sentenced in relation to multiple offences (whether by the same or different judges) and where they are co-offenders in relation to some but not to all of the multiple offences for which each was sentenced, there is little if any value in attempting to compare the individual sentences imposed upon the different offenders in relation to the same offence."
19 Mr Button sought to distinguish that proposition by reference to the fact that his Honour was directing his attention particularly to individual sentences with the consequence, so it was submitted, that the proposition was of limited, if of any value, where there were a series of offences being dealt with upon a totality basis. There is some force in that submission, however, it is not to my mind persuasive.
20 The same proposition does apply, to my mind, where there are a series of different offences, and where the offenders involved fulfilled different roles in relation to each of them. In a case such as the present, where there was a multiplicity of offences, with each offender performing a different role, it would involve a somewhat pointless, if not hypothetical exercise to attempt a weighing process in relation to their individual culpability for each offence.
21 At the end of the day, what a sentencing judge must do is to regard the matter in a global way, taking into account the objective and subjective circumstances present, and come to a conclusion in relation to the criminality of the individual offences involved.
22 In the present case I am satisfied that this is precisely what his Honour did and it was that to which his Honour referred when observing that the criminality of the individual offender was of a similar degree.
23 Moreover, in my view, when offenders are involved in a series of offences of this type, there is not necessarily any significant difference objectively between the position of an offender who carried out five such offences and one who committed, for example, eight such offences. What was more material, in my view, was the fact that the applicant offended over a longer period, that is, between 14 December 1998 and 9 March 1999, while Ibrahim-Khel's offences were confined to a period of approximately one month, between 4 February 1999 and 9 March 1999; and those of Ghaderi were confined to a period of six weeks, between 24 January 1999 and 9 March 1999.
24 The one matter which I accept does call for closer reflection is the fact Ibrahim-Khel was subject to a bond and did have a worse record than the applicant. That clearly was a difference of importance which would have been of considerable significance had the offences for which it had been imposed been of the same genus as those for which he and the applicant stood for sentence before his Honour.
25 A counterbalancing consideration in this case, it seems to me, is the circumstance that the applicant had a personal experience of being the victim of an armed robbery, which he acknowledged had been an occasion of great trauma for him. To deliberately offend against others in a similar way, after having had this experience and within a matter of days of it, was quite inexcusable and a circumstance which, in my view, disentitled him to much in the way of leniency.
26 At the end of the day, I am of the view that to intervene in this case would result in a sentence that would be manifestly lenient, and one that would not be reflective of the significantly serious objective circumstances involved. In that regard, counsel did accept that to intervene would produce a lenient sentence, although he argued not one which would be manifestly lenient. That was a fair concession on his part. However, I think it understates the consequence of intervention.
27 In this regard it is accepted that the doctrine of parity is not to be applied so as to require the imposition of an inadequate sentence (see Regina v Pritchard and McDonald (Unreported NSWCCA 22 April 1993). In Regina v Steele (Unreported NSWCCA 17 April 1997) Simpson J, in declining to reduce a sentence by reason of parity said: