Regina v Ng, Regina v Lew

In the case of Regina v Ng and Regina v Lew, two offenders were convicted of their involvement in a robbery during which a fatal shooting occurred. The offenders, Ng and Lew, were before the court to be sentenced. Ng pleaded guilty to being an accessory before the fact to murder, while Lew pleaded guilty to robbery with intent to murder. The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate level of culpability for each offender, the parity of their sentences, and the consideration of a Victim Impact Statement in determining the sentence.

The court had to balance the culpability of the offenders in the fatal outcome against the fact that one offender had pleaded guilty, potentially mitigating their sentence. The court considered the roles of each offender in the crime and the principle of parity in sentencing, ensuring that the sentences reflected the respective levels of culpability. Additionally, the court examined the Victim Impact Statement to understand the impact of the crime on the victim's family and to inform the sentencing decision.

The court found that Ng's level of culpability was less than that of Lew, primarily because Ng had not directly participated in the shooting but had facilitated the crime. Despite this, the court recognised that Ng's role was significant and contributed to the tragic outcome. The court decided that while a degree of parity was necessary, the differences in culpability warranted a variance in the sentences. The court ultimately sentenced Ng to a term of imprisonment reflecting his reduced culpability but still imposing a significant penalty for his involvement. Lew, who had a higher level of culpability, received a harsher sentence, aligning more closely with the severity of his direct involvement in the crime.