Corda v R

The applicants, Corda, appealed against their sentences, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the principle of parity and erred in assessing the objective seriousness of their offences. The applicants were convicted of drug trafficking offences and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentencing judge had adequately addressed the principle of parity and whether the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences was correct. The applicants argued that their offences were more serious than those of their co-offenders, and that the sentences were disproportionate.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently address the principle of parity, which requires that the sentences of co-offenders be comparable unless there are justifiable reasons for disparity. However, the Court also found that the applicants' sentences were not manifestly excessive or unjust. The Court noted that while the applicants' offences were more serious than those of their co-offenders, the sentencing judge had considered this in determining the sentences. The Court concluded that the principle of parity was not sufficiently considered, but that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal granted the applicants leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The Court found that while the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the principle of parity, the sentences were not manifestly excessive or unjust. The Court emphasised the importance of considering the principle of parity in sentencing but found that the sentences in this case were appropriate. The applicants' sentences were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.