Rose v The King

The applicant, Rose, appealed against their sentence for aggravated burglary and recklessly causing injury. The Court of Appeal considered whether the original sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether it infringed the parity principle when compared to the sentence of the co-accused. The original sentence was a total effective sentence of two years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months. The co-accused had received a sentence of 70 days’ imprisonment and a two-year community corrections order. The Court of Appeal examined the objective gravity and moral culpability of both offenders, as well as the circumstances of the offence. The Court determined that the disparity in the sentences was manifestly excessive, and the original sentence imposed on the applicant was not commensurate with the offence committed. The appeal was allowed, and the applicant was resentenced to a total effective sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months.

The primary legal issues for the Court of Appeal to decide were whether the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it infringed the parity principle when compared to the co-accused. The Court of Appeal considered the objective gravity and moral culpability of both offenders, as well as the circumstances of the offence. The Court also took into account the relevant sentencing principles and authorities, including Galea v The Queen, Green v The Queen, Grey v The King, Hafner v The Queen, O’Loughlan v The Queen, and Postiglione v The Queen. The Court of Appeal found that the original sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive and did not comply with the parity principle. The Court further determined that the objective gravity and moral culpability of both offenders were similar, as were the circumstances of the offence. The Court of Appeal concluded that the disparity in the sentences was manifestly excessive and that the original sentence imposed on the applicant was not commensurate with the offence committed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and resentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months. The Court considered that the new sentence was proportionate to the objective gravity and moral culpability of the offence, and was commensurate with the sentence imposed on the co-accused. The Court of Appeal also noted that the new sentence took into account the relevant sentencing principles and authorities, and was consistent with the sentencing practices of the Court. The Court of Appeal further determined that the new sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe the parity principle. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and made the following orders: (1) The applicant's appeal against sentence is allowed; (2) The applicant is resentenced to a total effective sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine months.