R v Swayn; ex parte A-G (Qld)

The case involved the respondent, who was found guilty of one count of grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to eight months imprisonment wholly suspended by the trial judge. The respondent was tried with his brother, who was sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after eight months with an operational period of three years for the same count. The respondent's brother carried out the actual attack while the respondent stood outside. The respondent appealed against his sentence, arguing that the difference in the sentences imposed gave rise to the appearance of injustice and that his sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court needed to determine whether the difference in the sentences imposed created the appearance of injustice and whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for consistency in sentencing and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence. The court also considered the role of the respondent in the offence and the need to deter future offending.

The court found that the difference in the sentences imposed did give rise to the appearance of injustice. The court held that the respondent's sentence was manifestly inadequate and that a more severe sentence was warranted. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence of eight months imprisonment wholly suspended. In its place, the court substituted a sentence of fifteen months imprisonment suspended after four months with an operational period of two years. The court also ordered that a warrant to issue for the arrest of the respondent to lie in the Registry for seven days.