Piacentino v The Queen

The case of Piacentino v The Queen involved an appeal by the applicant against his sentence following a guilty plea to armed robbery. The applicant used a chainsaw to lacerate the arm of the victim during the course of robbing them of their car. The applicant was sentenced to four years and five months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and seven months. The co-offender, who was not the one wielding the chainsaw, was sentenced to 612 days imprisonment with a three year community correction order. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider his intellectual disability and that the sentences imposed breached the parity principle.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge failed to pay proper regard to the applicant’s intellectual disability and whether the disparity in sentences between the applicant and his co-offender breached the parity principle. The applicant contended that his disability should have led to a lesser sentence, and the disparity in their sentences was unjust.

The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the applicant’s intellectual disability but concluded that it did not warrant a lesser sentence in this case. The court also held that the sentencing judge had given adequate reasons for the disparity in sentences between the applicant and his co-offender, and there was no breach of the parity principle. The court emphasised the seriousness of the armed robbery and the use of a chainsaw in the offence, which justified the applicant’s sentence. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentences imposed were appropriate and did not breach any legal principles.