Thompson v The Queen

The appeal in *Thompson v The Queen* concerned a severity appeal against a sentence imposed for aggravated robbery committed in company. The appellant, Thompson, argued that the sentence was unduly severe, particularly in light of the sentence imposed on his co-offender.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the disparity between the sentence imposed on Thompson and that imposed on his co-offender was justified. This required the Court to consider the application of the parity principle, which mandates that sentences for co-offenders should be broadly similar unless there are justifiable reasons for a disparity. The Court had to determine if any differences in the subjective circumstances of the offenders, such as their age and prospects of rehabilitation, or in the objective seriousness of their offending, adequately explained the sentencing difference. The ultimate question was whether Thompson could establish a justifiable sense of grievance arising from this disparity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the disparity in sentences was justified. The reasoning applied by the Court acknowledged that while the parity principle is important, it does not require identical sentences for co-offenders. Differences in subjective factors, such as the appellant's prior criminal history and poorer prospects of rehabilitation compared to his co-offender, as well as differences in their respective roles in the offending, were considered relevant and sufficient to justify the disparity. The Court concluded that the sentencing judge had properly taken into account all relevant differences when imposing the sentence.