Eldridge v The Queen; Mackay v The Queen

In the case of Eldridge v The Queen and Mackay v The Queen, the applicants, having pleaded guilty to serious drug supply offences, appealed against the sentences imposed by the sentencing Judge. Eldridge argued that the sentencing Judge failed to take into account her expressions of remorse and prospects for rehabilitation. Both Eldridge and Mackay also contended that their sentences were excessively harsh compared to those of other co-offenders, thereby asserting a parity issue.

The court examined whether the sentencing Judge had properly considered the factors of remorse and rehabilitation, as well as the proportionality of the sentences in light of the parity argument. Regarding the sentencing considerations, the court found no evidence that the sentencing Judge had failed to take these factors into account. The court also assessed the argument of manifest excessiveness and determined that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. Regarding the parity ground, the court accepted that the applicants had a legitimate sense of grievance when comparing their sentences with those of other co-offenders.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, granted leave to appeal, and ordered that both Eldridge and Mackay be resentenced. The court's decision recognised the applicants' grievances concerning the disparity in sentencing but upheld the overall assessment of the sentences as not being manifestly excessive. The appeals were allowed, and both applicants were resentenced by the court.