Shortland v R

In the case of Shortland v R, the applicant was sentenced by a District Court judge for his role in a violent attack by a group of young men on another group of young men. The applicant was sentenced for aggravated robbery in company inflicting grievous bodily harm in company. His co-offenders were sentenced later by District Court, Local Court and Children's Court judges for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company. All the offenders were participants in a joint criminal enterprise. The judges and magistrates who sentenced the co-offenders were not informed of the sentence imposed upon the applicant, and the remarks on the sentence of the applicant's sentencing judge were not supplied to the later sentencing judges and magistrates. The applicant argued that he had a legitimate sense of grievance due to the principle of parity or proportionality of sentences, the strong desirability that co-offenders be sentenced by the same judge, and the necessity for remarks on the sentence to be provided if a related offender was to be sentenced by a different judge or magistrate. The court considered whether the applicant had an objective foundation for his sense of grievance and whether there was a very marked discrepancy between the sentences imposed upon the applicant and his co-offenders, even allowing for different charges and different jurisdictions.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the applicant had a legitimate sense of grievance and whether the principle of parity or proportionality of sentences applied in this case. The court also considered whether it was necessary for the remarks on the sentence to be provided to a different judge or magistrate if a related offender was to be sentenced. Additionally, the court examined whether there was a duty on the Crown to ensure that remarks on the sentence were provided to a different judge or magistrate.

The court held that the applicant did have a legitimate sense of grievance, and that the principle of parity or proportionality of sentences applied in this case. The court found that it was necessary for the remarks on the sentence to be provided to a different judge or magistrate if a related offender was to be sentenced. The court also held that there was a duty on the Crown to ensure that remarks on the sentence were provided to a different judge or magistrate. The court found that there was a very marked discrepancy between the sentences imposed upon the applicant and his co-offenders, even allowing for different charges and different jurisdictions. The court held that the lesser sentences imposed upon the applicant were unjust and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court concluded that the applicant's sense of grievance was objectively founded and that there was a strong desirability that co-offenders be sentenced by the same judge. The court ordered that the applicant's sentence be reviewed and that the Crown ensure that remarks on the sentence were provided to any future sentencing judges or magistrates.