R v Izzard

The case of R v Izzard involved the applicant who was convicted of various offences, including attempted robbery, theft, attempted armed robbery, armed robbery, and recklessly causing injury. The applicant, suffering from a serious psychiatric illness and intellectual disability, was initially sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the count of armed robbery, which was also determined to be the total effective sentence. The applicant sought a re-sentencing due to the disparity in sentencing between the applicant and a co-offender, who was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment wholly suspended on the same count of armed robbery.

The court was required to decide whether the applicant's sentence should be reduced to achieve parity with the co-offender's sentence and if the principle of "moderating and cumulating" should be applied in the applicant's case. The court also needed to consider the applicant's serious psychiatric illness and intellectual disability in determining the appropriate sentence.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the disparity in sentencing between the applicant and the co-offender and recognised the importance of achieving parity in sentencing. The court also considered the principle of "moderating and cumulating," which involves adjusting the sentences for individual offences to achieve a fair and balanced overall sentence. Taking into account the applicant's serious psychiatric illness and intellectual disability, the court determined that a re-sentencing was warranted. The applicant was re-sentenced to terms of imprisonment that, with cumulation, resulted in a total effective sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and nine months.