R v Shipman

The applicant, who pleaded guilty to eight offences including armed robbery and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst intoxicated, as well as three summary offences, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant was sentenced to an effective period of imprisonment of 6 years with a recommendation for eligibility for post-prison community-based release after two years. The applicant had a lengthy criminal history and was dissatisfied with the parity of sentences between the applicant and a co-offender who was ten years younger and had a less serious criminal history. The co-offender was sentenced to four years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, for the same armed robbery and dangerous driving offences.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant could have a justifiable sense of grievance about the parity of sentences, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of parity and discrimination between co-offenders, and the factors that should be taken into account when determining a sentence. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the need to protect the community.

The court found that the applicant's lengthy criminal history was a relevant consideration when determining the sentence, but that the applicant's age and the disparity in the sentences between the applicant and the co-offender were also relevant factors. The court found that the applicant could have a justifiable sense of grievance about the parity of sentences, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court allowed the appeal against sentence to the limited extent of substituting a sentence of five years imprisonment for the six years imprisonment imposed on count 5 in Indictment 1931 of 2003.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal against sentence and allowed the appeal to the limited extent of substituting a sentence of five years imprisonment for the six years imprisonment imposed on count 5 in Indictment 1931 of 2003. The court emphasised the importance of considering the principles of parity and discrimination between co-offenders when determining a sentence, and the need to take into account all relevant factors. The court also emphasised the need for general deterrence and the need to protect the community.