Postiglione v the Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Postiglione against a sentence imposed upon him. The central issue concerned the disparity between his sentence and those of his co-offenders, and the application of the parity and totality principles in sentencing.

The Court was required to determine whether the disparity in sentences between Mr Postiglione and his co-offenders was unjustifiable, and how the parity and totality principles should be applied in such circumstances. It also considered the procedural aspects of the Court of Criminal Appeal's jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal and the proper procedure for determining applications for leave to appeal against sentence, particularly in light of an error in the notification of the Court's determination.

The High Court held that the parity principle requires that sentences imposed on co-offenders should be broadly similar, unless there are objective reasons for disparity. This principle is not absolute and must be balanced against the totality principle, which requires that the total sentence imposed on an offender for multiple offences should not be excessive. The Court found that the disparity in sentences in this case was not adequately explained and that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in its approach.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales to take such steps as it could to give effect to the High Court's decision.