Shedden v The Queen

The case of Shedden v The Queen concerns a sentencing appeal where the primary issue was whether the sentencing judge should have applied the parity principle in sentencing two co-offenders for manslaughter. The appellant, Shedden, was part of a group of young men who engaged in a retaliatory assault during which the victim was shot while armed with a knife. The comparison of culpability and personal characteristics between Shedden and his co-offender, Mr Forbes, was central to the appeal. The appellant argued that the differences in their culpability and personal circumstances did not justify the disparity in their sentences, leading to a justified sense of grievance.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to apply the parity principle and whether the differences in culpability and personal circumstances between Shedden and Mr Forbes justified the disparity in sentences. The court needed to determine if the sentencing judge's comparison of the two offenders' culpability and personal characteristics was sufficient and whether there was a justified sense of grievance on the part of Shedden. The court also had to assess if the differences in age, criminal history, and role in the crime warranted a significant disparity in sentences.

The court found that it was not accurate to say that the sentencing judge erred in failing to apply the parity principle, as she implicitly acknowledged its application. However, the court concluded that the differences in culpability and personal circumstances between Shedden and Mr Forbes justified the disparity in sentences. Shedden actively recruited participants and played a leadership role, whereas Mr Forbes was a follower, naive, and gullible. Additionally, Shedden had more life experience and a history of crimes involving violence, whereas Mr Forbes had no criminal antecedents and showed remorse. The court found that these differences were sufficient to justify the disparity in sentences and there was no basis for any justified sense of grievance on the part of Shedden.

The final orders of the court upheld the sentencing judge's decision, affirming that the differences in culpability and personal circumstances between the appellant and Mr Forbes justified the disparity in their sentences and there was no justified sense of grievance on the part of the appellant.