Stewart, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns multiple criminal charges against the Appellant, including attempted murder, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, robbery, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, affray, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The Appellant was sentenced to a custody probation order of 14 years' detention with 1 year probation for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, incorporating a 12-year imprisonment term and a 3-year protective element. Concurrent sentences of 7 years and 5 years' detention were imposed for wounding with intent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm respectively.

The factual background involves violent incidents where the Appellant and co-defendants engaged in a physical altercation, with evidence including CCTV footage and witness testimony detailing movements and actions during and after the fight. The Appellant remained actively involved throughout the incident. The victims suffered severe injuries, notably one victim who became effectively blind with permanent bodily damage and greatly reduced mobility, profoundly impacting his future and psychological well-being.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the Appellant were appropriate and justified given the nature and severity of the offences.
2. Whether the disparity in sentencing between the Appellant and co-defendants constituted a valid ground for reducing the Appellant's sentence.
3. The appropriateness of the protective element and probation period within the custody probation order imposed on the Appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the disparity in sentencing between himself and a co-defendant was unjustified and warranted a reduction in his sentence.
• It was argued that the sentence imposed on a co-defendant was below the established sentencing range, creating a grievance for the Appellant despite his own sentence not being excessive.
• Counsel invoked established authority holding that a disparity in sentences must be marked and glaring to justify interference, emphasizing that a fair-minded observer must perceive the disparity as unjust before a sentence reduction is warranted.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the severity and nature of the offences, particularly the wanton violence involving weapons and the devastating injuries inflicted on the victims. It acknowledged the increasing prevalence of such violent offences and emphasized the need for sentences to reflect society's rejection and deterrence of such conduct.

Regarding the disparity argument, the court applied established legal principles that a sentencing disparity between co-defendants must be substantial and glaring to merit interference. The court found the Appellant's sentence to be within justified and accepted standards, whereas the co-defendant's lesser sentence was deemed inadequate. Consequently, the Appellant's grievance was not considered justified.

The court also considered the protective element and probation period as integral to the overall sentencing framework, ensuring that the punishment was both commensurate with the crime and protective of society.

Holding and Implications

The court upheld the sentences imposed on the Appellant, rejecting the argument that sentencing disparity with a co-defendant justified reduction. The protective element and probation period were affirmed as appropriate components of the custody probation order.

The direct consequence is that the Appellant will serve the imposed sentence without modification. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court reaffirmed existing principles concerning sentencing disparity and the appropriate judicial response to serious violent offences.