R v HAYMAN

This matter concerned an appeal against sentence brought by Mr Hayman. The dispute centred on whether the sentence imposed on Mr Hayman was excessive, particularly in light of the sentences received by a co-offender, Mr Oldfield. The appeal was heard by Nicholson, Lovell and Hinton JJ.

The court was required to determine whether the disparity between the sentence imposed on Mr Hayman and that imposed on Mr Oldfield was such as to warrant intervention. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Mr Hayman's sentence was demonstrably too severe, or if the disparity arose from Mr Oldfield receiving a sentence that was too lenient.

The court reasoned that the mere fact of disparity between sentences for co-offenders does not automatically mean the more severe sentence is unjust. Drawing on the principle established in *R v Kite*, the court noted that if one offender receives too light a sentence, it does not necessitate a reduction in another's sentence; rather, the disparity might ideally be remedied by increasing the lighter sentence, though this was not possible in the present appeal as Mr Oldfield's sentence was not before the court. The court then analysed Mr Oldfield's offending and criminal history, noting he was charged with and sentenced for additional offences, suggesting a greater role than Mr Hayman. The court also considered the gravity of Mr Oldfield's offences and his prior convictions, including previous suspended sentences and a long period without appearing in court. The court found that while Mr Oldfield's offending on 2 November 2017 was marginally less serious than his offending on 27 November 2017, the difference was not so significant as to justify relegating the earlier offending to minimal weight in sentencing. The court also noted Mr Oldfield's limited prior imprisonment and lack of convictions for break and enter or criminal trespass.