Wright v The King

The applicant, Wright, was found guilty of home invasion, common assault, damaging property, theft and related summary offences. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 2 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the trial judge had misapplied the Sentencing Act 1991, sections 5(2H), 38 and 44, and that considerations of double jeopardy and parity required the imposition of a lesser sentence. The Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in the application of the relevant sections of the Act and whether the sentence was within the range open to the trial judge.

The Court considered the principles governing the application of the Sentencing Act 1991 and the principles of double jeopardy and parity. The Court found that the trial judge had erred in the application of section 5(2H) of the Act, which requires the court to consider the principle of parity when sentencing an offender. The Court found that the sentence imposed was within the range open to the trial judge, but that the trial judge had not adequately considered the principle of parity when imposing the sentence. The Court found that the considerations of double jeopardy and parity required the imposition of a lesser sentence.

The Court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence and remitted the matter to the trial judge for re-sentencing. The Court noted that the trial judge should have adequately considered the principle of parity when imposing the sentence, and that the sentence should be within the range open to the trial judge. The Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge to grant the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence.

The Court's final orders were that the applicant be granted leave to appeal against the sentence, that the matter be remitted to the trial judge for re-sentencing, and that the trial judge adequately consider the principle of parity when imposing the sentence. The Court noted that the sentence should be within the range open to the trial judge.