R v Sharp

The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, R Sharp, for the offence of unlawful confinement. The appeal concerned whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court noted that appeals against sentence had been imposed on two co-offenders, and a further co-offender had been resentenced on appeal. The central question for the court was whether interfering with Sharp's sentence would create unjustified parity between the sentences imposed on the co-offenders.

The court was required to determine whether the original sentence imposed on the respondent was demonstrably inadequate, considering the circumstances of the offence and the sentences imposed on co-offenders. It also had to consider the principle of parity in sentencing and whether any disparity between the respondent's sentence and those of his co-offenders was justified.

The court allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. In its reasoning, the court applied the principles of sentencing for unlawful confinement, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence. Crucially, the court considered the sentences imposed on the respondent's co-offenders and determined that the disparity between those sentences and the respondent's original sentence was unjustified. The court then resentenced the appellant.