Background
Person 2 pleaded guilty to reckless wounding in company, four counts of shooting with intent to murder, and two firearms-supply offences. The wounding involved an unprovoked group attack in which he repeatedly stabbed a stranger. The shooting offences arose from a planned attempt to kill members of a rival organised-crime network for payment. Eighteen rounds were fired outside a gym, wounding one target and penetrating an adjoining creche occupied by three children and two workers, although Person 2’s rifle did not discharge because its safety remained engaged.
While on remand, Person 2 also arranged the commercial sale of three firearms, including the two assault rifles used in the shooting. The District Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years and 9 months, after applying a combined 50% discount to the indicative sentences. Person 2 appealed after his co-offender, Person 1, successfully obtained a reduction of his sentence for the four shooting offences to 15 years, with a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months.
The Court’s Holding
The Court rejected Person 2’s arguments that the sentencing judge had misapplied the totality principle or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. His case involved additional, distinct episodes of serious offending not present in Person 1’s case, and the aggregate sentence appropriately reflected his overall criminality. The Court also rejected the proposed mathematical reconstruction of accumulation, emphasizing that sentencing is not a mathematical exercise.
The Court nevertheless allowed the appeal on parity grounds. Despite differences between the offenders and the additional charges against Person 2, the gap between his sentence and Person 1’s reduced sentence was sufficiently marked to create a justifiable sense of grievance. Exercising the sentencing discretion afresh and applying a combined 60% discount, the Court imposed an aggregate term of 19 years, with a non-parole period of 13 years and 3 months. Person 2 will first be eligible for parole on 16 March 2035.
The Court also observed that deliberately committing a violent offence for financial reward may place the offence prima facie within the worst category even when the contracted objective is not achieved. General deterrence must play a significant role in sentencing contract killings and other contract crimes.
Key Takeaways
- A sentence may be reduced on parity grounds even where it is neither manifestly excessive nor affected by an error in applying totality.
- Aggregate sentences should be assessed by whether they reflect the total criminality, not by mathematically reconstructing concurrence and accumulation from indicative sentences.
- Violent contract crimes may be prima facie among the most objectively serious offences even when the intended killing or other objective fails.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that parity is an independent constraint on sentencing: a later reduction in a co-offender’s sentence can justify appellate intervention where the resulting disparity cannot be explained by differences in offending or personal circumstances. It also cautions practitioners against treating aggregate sentencing as an arithmetic exercise.
The Court’s broader observations signal a stringent approach to financially motivated violence. Failed contract crimes may still attract an assessment approaching the worst category because culpability turns on the deliberate agreement and attempt to commit violence for reward, not merely on whether the intended result occurred.