The parity principle is not infringed where the disparity between sentences imposed on co-offenders for the same offence is justified by the significantly different roles and levels of culpability of each co-offender in the commission of the offence.
Buss P
A three-year disparity between co-offenders' sentences for joint possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply does not infringe the parity principle where the offenders played significantly different roles — one being the owner and dealer acting for profit, the other providing temporary storage. In serious drug offending, favourable personal circumstances are subsidiary to the need for general and personal deterrence.
No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.
Generate the headnoteFree trial · no card required
Legal principles extracted from this case
Free trial — no card required
Cases considered by HOLLINGSWORTH -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Cases that have considered HOLLINGSWORTH -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Judicial Consideration (Chronological)