R v Pan

In the matter of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, the applicant, Pan, appeals against his sentence imposed for malicious wounding in company. The court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was unjust in light of the sentence given to the co-offender and whether the court could take into account the applicant’s conduct on bail in making a decision under s.28A(2) of the Act.

The legal issues before the court were whether the disparity in sentences between the applicant and his co-offender constituted a justifiable sense of grievance and if the court could consider the applicant's conduct on bail when making a decision under s.28A(2). The court found that the disparity in sentences did not constitute a justifiable sense of grievance. Regarding the conduct on bail, the court held that it could consider the applicant's behaviour on bail in making a decision under s.28A(2), as it was relevant to the applicant's suitability for a suspended sentence.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence but made an order under s.28A(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, suspending the applicant's sentence for a period of 12 months. The court took into account the applicant's conduct on bail, which was deemed satisfactory. The court held that the applicant's conduct on bail was a relevant factor in determining whether the applicant was suitable for a suspended sentence.

The court's final order was that the applicant's sentence was suspended for a period of 12 months, subject to certain conditions. The applicant was required to comply with the conditions of the order, including maintaining good conduct and not committing any further offences. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering an applicant's conduct on bail when making a decision under s.28A(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.