and Marc Stanton Harris v The Queen

Marc Stanton Harris sought leave to appeal against his sentence for multiple charges of criminal damage, theft, and attempted theft, which resulted in significant damage. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it infringed parity principles with a co-offender who received a lesser sentence. The court was also required to decide if the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.

The court examined the sentence, which was 4 years and 5 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 11 months. The appeal hinged on whether this sentence was manifestly excessive and if it infringed parity principles given that a co-offender, responsible for a lesser number of offences, received a sentence of 3 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 21 months. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was well within the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences. Additionally, the court concluded that the parity complaint was not reasonably arguable since there was no reasonable prospect that a less severe sentence would be imposed. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that the sentence imposed on Harris was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe on parity principles. The court found no reasonable prospect that a less severe sentence would be imposed, leading to the refusal of leave to appeal. The decision underscores the court's position on the appropriateness of the sentence and the parity between co-offenders, affirming the original sentencing decision.