SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Apps v The Queen |
Citation: | [2020] ACTCA 53 |
Hearing Date: | 2 November 2020 |
DecisionDate: | 13 November 2020 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Mossop and Abraham JJ |
Decision: | Appeal dismissed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – SENTENCE APPEAL – Aggravated robbery – Parity principle – Where co-offenders sentenced on different facts |
Legislation Cited: | Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 37E, 37O |
Cases Cited: | Baladjam v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 304; 341 FLR 162 Bond v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 277 |
Parties: | Aren Paul Apps (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel J Purnell SC (Appellant) R Christensen (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Bevan & Co (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 1 of 2020 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 20 December 2019 Case Title: R v Apps (No 2) Citation: [2019] ACTSC 369 |
THE COURT:
Introduction
On 20 December 2019, Burns J (the sentencing judge) sentenced the appellant for two offences of aggravated robbery: R v Apps (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 369.
The first offence occurred on 18 October 2017. For this offence, the appellant was sentenced to four years and one month’s imprisonment (reduced from four years and 10 months’ imprisonment for the plea of guilty), from 8 October 2019 to 7 November 2023.
Mr Fisher, the co-offender, was sentenced to three years and seven months’ imprisonment (reduced from four years’ imprisonment): R v Fisher [2019] ACTSC 370.
The second offence occurred on 7 March 2019. The appellant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment (reduced from five years’ imprisonment for the plea of guilty), from 8 May 2022 to 7 May 2026.
The appellant pursued the appeal only on the ground that there was an unjustified disparity between the sentence imposed upon him for the first offence and that imposed upon Mr Fisher.
The appeal
The appeal was brought pursuant to s 37E(2)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (SCA). On such an appeal, the Court of Appeal has broad powers: SCA s 37O. However, it is well-established that the Court will intervene only if it is satisfied that there has been a specific error of fact or law, or an error must be implied: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied, for example, in R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53 at [53].
Facts on sentence
The first…
Continue reading Apps v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Apps v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 53
- Case
- [2020] ACTCA 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on Apps was manifestly excessive, having regard to the sentences imposed on his co-offenders. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the disparity in sentences was justified, notwithstanding that the factual circumstances underpinning the sentences of the co-offenders differed from those applicable to Apps.
The Court affirmed that the parity principle requires that like cases be treated alike, but it does not mandate identical sentences for co-offenders. The principle is a guide to ensure that disparities in sentencing are not arbitrary or unjust. In this instance, the Court found that the differences in the factual circumstances relevant to each offender, including their respective roles in the commission of the offence and their prior records, provided a sufficient justification for the disparity in sentences. The sentencing judge had properly taken these differences into account, and the sentence imposed on Apps was not demonstrably excessive.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.