R v Avery

The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Avery, in the District Court for offences including unlawful confinement, demands accompanied by threats, trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, unlawful possession of stolen property, and possessing cannabis. The central dispute concerned whether the sentence for unlawful confinement was manifestly inadequate, particularly in light of the parity principle and the need for general deterrence against vigilante justice.

The court was required to determine whether the original sentence for unlawful confinement was so lenient as to be demonstrably wrong. This involved considering the severity of the offence, the respondent's role in the offending, the sentences imposed on co-offenders, and the broader public interest considerations, including the need to deter vigilante behaviour.

The court reasoned that the sentence for unlawful confinement was indeed manifestly inadequate. It applied the parity principle, noting that the respondent's sentence was significantly less than that of a co-offender who played a comparable role. Furthermore, the court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases involving vigilante justice, stating that such conduct could not be tolerated and required a sentence that reflected its seriousness. The court found that the original sentence failed to adequately reflect these considerations.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced.