Legal Research
Cases
Chandler v The The Queen

Chandler v The The Queen

Case [2022] NSWCCA 124 10 June 2022

Appeal

Aggravating Factors

Sentencing

Comparative Culpability

In Company

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chandler v R [2022] NSWCCA 124
Hearing dates: 27 May 2022
Date of orders: 10 June 2022
Decision date: 10 June 2022
Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Button J at [30];
N Adams J at [31]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – principle of parity – where applicant and co-offender pleaded guilty to different offences arising from identical facts – where different offences reflected different levels of moral and criminal culpability
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – aggravating factors – in company – Applicant carried out offence in company with co-offender – where co-offender pleaded guilty to lesser offence on the basis of joint criminal enterprise – whether the fact that Applicant was in company was an element of his offending
SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – co-offenders – disparity between sentences – applicant shot victim in leg after co-offender lured him into position – applicant and co-offender pleaded guilty to different offences arising from identical facts – where maximum penalty for applicant’s offence is 25 years’ imprisonment compared to 10 years for co-offender’s offence – where applicant’s moral and criminal culpability significantly higher than that of co-offender – where applicant obtained lesser discount than co-offender for guilty plea – whether there was unjustifiable disparity between applicant and co-offender’s sentences
SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – aggravating factors – in company – Applicant carried out offence in company with co-offender – where co-offender pleaded guilty to lesser offence on the basis of joint criminal enterprise – whether the fact that Applicant was in company was an element of his offending

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 33A, 93G
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 10(1)(a), 21A(2), 25D, 25E
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 65(3)

Cases Cited:
Daw v R [2017] NSWCCA 327
Gaggioli v R [2014] NSWCCA 246
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Kadwell (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 42
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
R v Birchell [2020] NSWDC 69
Tabbah v R [2019] NSWCCA 324

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Dylan Zachary Chandler (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:

G D Wendler (Applicant)
A Morris (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Criminal Law Group (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/305344
Publication restriction: N/A
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

2 March 2021

Before:

Colefax SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/305344

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 30 November 2020, Mr Dylan Zachary Chandler (the Applicant) pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chandler v The The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chandler v The The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 124
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 124
Decision Date: 10 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Chandler v The Queen, the applicant appealed against his sentence for a crime committed in company with a co-offender, both of whom pleaded guilty to different charges arising from the same set of facts. The applicant shot a victim in the leg after his co-offender lured the victim into position. The applicant and his co-offender pleaded guilty to different offences reflecting different levels of moral and criminal culpability. The applicant's maximum penalty was 25 years' imprisonment, compared to 10 years for the co-offender. The applicant argued that there was an unjustifiable disparity between their sentences, despite their differing levels of culpability and the fact that the applicant obtained a lesser discount for his guilty plea.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the principle of parity justified a reduction in the applicant's sentence to match that of the co-offender. Additionally, the court had to determine if the fact that the applicant committed the offence in company with the co-offender constituted an element of his offending, and if this warranted a different sentence. The applicant contended that the disparity between their sentences was unjustifiable given the differences in their respective levels of culpability.

The court considered the principle of parity, which requires that co-offenders who commit the same crime be treated equally unless there are valid reasons for a disparity in their sentences. The court acknowledged that the applicant's moral and criminal culpability was significantly higher than that of the co-offender. However, the court also recognised that the fact the applicant was in company with the co-offender was an element of his offending. The court concluded that while the principle of parity applied, the differences in the levels of culpability and the fact that the applicant was in company with the co-offender justified a disparity in the sentences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court did not order any modification to the sentence. The applicant's appeal against his sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders