Jones v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Ms Jones. The dispute arose from the sentence imposed on Ms Jones following her guilty plea to supplying a significant quantity of cannabis. Ms Jones was sentenced to 30 months periodic detention, which was to expire on 1 May 1993 but had been extended due to her being on bail. This sentence was contrasted with the lesser penalties imposed on her co-offenders, Mr John Norms Caling, who received community service, and Ms Megan Ruth Lillis, who was fined and also ordered to perform community service. Ms Jones appealed her sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground of disparity.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in its consideration of the disparity between Ms Jones' sentence and those of her co-offenders. Specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeal had stated that the question of parity in sentencing typically arises when a first offender is sentenced, and a co-offender is subsequently sentenced for the same offence, with the first sentence acting as a benchmark. The applicant contended that this approach did not adequately address the disparity in her case.

The High Court, in light of concessions made by the Crown regarding an error by the Court of Criminal Appeal in not recognising Mr Lowe as the first person sentenced, indicated its inclination to grant special leave to appeal and hear the appeal instanter. The Court noted that the likely outcome, given the Crown's submissions, would be to remit the matter back to the Court of Criminal Appeal for reconsideration. The Crown did not oppose this course of action, acknowledging the potential for the Court of Criminal Appeal to reach the same conclusion after reassessing the facts. The applicant's sentence was not due to expire for some time, allowing for such reassessment.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal and entertained the appeal instanter. The Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal for rehearing.