R v. Maygar; ex parte A-G (Qld); R v WT; ex parte A-G (Qld)

In these consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to consider the sentences imposed on two respondents for murder, following the Attorney-General of Queensland's application for an increase in the sentences. The respondents, Maygar and WT, had been convicted of multiple counts of murder. Maygar received a life sentence with a non-parole period of 20 years for two counts of murder, while WT was sentenced to 10 years detention with a non-parole period of five years for one count of murder. The central issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and if the sentencing judge erred by considering the disparity with the non-parole period of a juvenile co-offender as a relevant factor.

The court first examined whether Maygar's sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the severity of the crimes. The court held that the murders were of the worst kind and that the non-parole period of 20 years was insufficient. In making this determination, the court rejected the argument that the disparity with the co-offender's non-parole period should have been considered. As for WT, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, as it had taken into account the fact that WT acted under compulsion, and the court could not conclude that the offence was "particularly heinous" within the meaning of the relevant statute.

The court allowed the appeal in the case of Maygar, increasing the non-parole period to 30 years for each of the murder convictions. The appeal in relation to WT was dismissed, and no further orders were made in that case.