R v Tanswell; R v Leilua

In the matter of the Crown versus Tanswell and Leilua, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the defendants, who were found guilty of various charges including robbery in company and obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants were convicted of multiple incidents of theft and deception, and the court was required to decide on the appropriate aggregate sentences and non-parole periods for each defendant.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which expert witnesses, who had provided evidence during the trial, had complied with the Expert Code of Conduct. The court considered the impact of the experts' non-compliance on the sentencing process and whether it warranted any special considerations. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there were any special circumstances present in the case that would affect the sentencing of the defendants, and whether parity in sentencing between the two defendants was necessary.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the Expert Code of Conduct and the consequences of its non-compliance, which included the potential for the expert evidence to be given less weight. The court also examined the individual circumstances of each defendant, including their criminal history and the nature of their involvement in the offences. The court found that Mr Tanswell did not have any special circumstances, while Mr Leilua did have special circumstances, including the fact that one of the offences was a s166 Certificate offence. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of 6 years and 8 months for Mr Tanswell, with a non-parole period of 5 years, and a sentence of 6 years and 2 months for Mr Leilua, with a non-parole period of 4 years, and a conviction entered for the s166 Certificate offence with no other penalty.