Bara v The Queen

The appeal concerned the sentencing of the appellant, Bara, following his conviction for property offences. The appeal was heard by Grant CJ, Barr and Hiley JJ.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed on the appellant breached the principle of parity with a co-offender, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offending and the appellant. Specifically, the court considered whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing the same head sentence on the appellant as was imposed on the co-offender, and whether the appellant's criminal record and prospects for rehabilitation justified the sentence.

The court reasoned that a comparison of sentences requires consideration of all components of each sentence, including any suspension of a term of imprisonment. The presence of offensive weapons was considered a neutral factor that diminished the distinction between the offenders' conduct. While a record of persistent offending was noted, it was held not to necessarily attract a heavier sentence than a long record punctuated by periods of good behaviour. The court found that it was not possible to quantify a period by which the appellant's sentence should have been less than the co-offender's based solely on differences in their criminal records. Ultimately, the court concluded that to the extent any disparity existed between the head sentences, it was not so unjustified, significant, or manifestly excessive as to warrant appellate intervention. Furthermore, considering the weight of the appellant's criminal record and rehabilitation prospects, the head sentence was not found to fall outside any sentencing range or standard, nor was there a patent discrepancy with broadly analogous matters. The sentencing court was found to have appropriately considered objective and subjective factors.

The appeal was dismissed.