Director of Public Prosecutions v McGee

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Mr McGee, for the offence of aggravated robbery. The appeal concerned the application of the principle of parity between co-offenders in the context of a Crown appeal against sentence.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the principle of parity, which requires that sentences imposed on co-offenders should be broadly similar, applies to Crown appeals against sentence. The Court was required to determine if the sentencing judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the disparity between the sentence imposed on Mr McGee and the sentences imposed on his co-offenders, and whether this disparity warranted interference by the appellate court.

The Full Court held that the principle of parity is a fundamental consideration in sentencing and applies equally to Crown appeals against sentence. The Court reasoned that a significant disparity in sentences between co-offenders, without proper justification, can indicate an error in the sentencing exercise. In this instance, the Court found that the sentence imposed on Mr McGee was demonstrably lower than that imposed on his co-offender, who had a comparable or greater level of culpability, and that this disparity was not adequately explained or justified by the sentencing judge. Consequently, the Court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the appeal should be allowed.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed on the respondent was quashed.