Armour v The Queen

In the matter of Armour v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 26 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 21 years. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge, whereas his co-offender pleaded not guilty and was convicted by the same judge. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and did not accord with the principle of parity. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it accorded with the principle of parity. The appellant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive because he had pleaded guilty, whereas his co-offender had not. The appellant also argued that his sentence did not accord with the principle of parity because he had played a limited role in the offence. The Crown argued that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the appellant's limited role did not warrant a lesser sentence.

The court noted that the principles in Verdins v The Queen applied to this case. The court held that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive because it was within the appropriate range. The court also held that the principle of parity did not require the appellant to receive a lesser sentence because his limited role did not warrant a reduction in his sentence. The court held that the findings of the primary judge were reasonably open and that the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable. Leave to appeal was refused.

The High Court of Australia refused the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence. The court held that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the principle of parity did not require a lesser sentence. The court held that the findings of the primary judge were reasonably open and that the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable.