AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 2 September 2026

Solo v R

[2026] NSWCCA 130

Assault & violence
OFFENDER — WHERE APPLICANT AND CO

Citation: Solo v R [2026] NSWCCA 130
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW
Date: 2 September 2026
Judge(s): N Adams CJ at CL; Fagan J; Richardson J

Background

The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company, contrary to s 35(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offending arose from a group assault on Anzac Day 2024 outside a hotel in Bidwill, in which the applicant and two co-offenders, Lyzwa and Trindall, attacked two men after returning to the scene in their Uber. The victim suffered serious injuries, including being kicked and stomped on while on the ground.

The applicant was sentenced on the basis of his participation in a joint criminal enterprise with both co-offenders. Judge Beckett in the District Court imposed a sentence of 3 years 2 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year 10 months, after a 15% guilty plea discount. Co-offender Trindall received a lesser sentence of 2 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 2 months.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the sole ground that the disparity between his sentence and Trindall's gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, particularly given that Trindall had a Form 1 matter (a charge of reckless wounding) taken into account at sentencing.

  • Whether the 10-month difference in head sentences between the applicant and co-offender Trindall constituted a marked and unjustified disparity.
  • Whether the presence of a Form 1 matter on Trindall's sentence, absent from the applicant's, required a lesser sentence for the applicant.
  • Whether the sentencing judge correctly accounted for differences in the subjective circumstances of the applicant and Trindall when considering parity.

Decision

The parity ground: The Court held that a simple numerical comparison of head sentences is not the correct analytical approach to a parity ground on appeal. The task is to examine the differences in criminality and subjective circumstances between the offenders and to determine whether the resulting proportion between their sentences leaves the applicant with a justifiable sense of grievance, applying Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 and Mohr v R [2024] NSWCCA 197.

Role of the joint criminal enterprise and the Form 1: Richardson J observed that, where offenders are sentenced on the basis of a joint criminal enterprise, each is sentenced for the full range of criminal acts carried out by all parties to that enterprise. The difference in objective criminality between the applicant and Trindall was therefore not as significant as the applicant submitted. Further, the Court confirmed that the existence of a Form 1 matter on Trindall's sentence did not inevitably lead to a conclusion of marked disparity, applying R v JW (2010) 77 NSWLR 7 and R v Wright [2009] NSWCCA 3.

Subjective circumstances: The applicant's subjective case was considerably less favourable than Trindall's. The sentencing judge correctly took into account the applicant's criminal history, persistent breaches of conditional liberty (including that the offending occurred within weeks of his release on parole), unsatisfactory responses to supervision, sparse evidence of remorse, and elevated risk of reoffending. Those matters justified a heightened need for specific deterrence in the applicant's case. Additionally, the sentencing judge allowed three months' backdating on the applicant's sentence, reducing the effective difference in non-parole periods between the two offenders to approximately five months.

Overall: The Court found the sentencing judge had carefully and expressly considered the question of parity in an overarching way. The discrepancy between the sentences was reasonably explained by the degree of difference between the two offenders' subjective cases, rendering the disparity neither marked nor unjustified.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • A parity challenge on appeal requires more than a bare comparison of head sentences. The analysis turns on whether differences in criminality and subjective circumstances reasonably explain the disparity, such that no justifiable sense of grievance arises.
  • Where offenders are sentenced on the basis of a joint criminal enterprise, differences in individual participation may carry less weight than might otherwise be expected, because each offender is sentenced for the full range of acts carried out in executing the enterprise.
  • The presence of a Form 1 matter on one co-offender's sentence does not automatically establish that a higher sentence imposed on another co-offender is disproportionate or unjustified.
  • Persistent breaches of conditional liberty, poor responses to supervision, and an elevated risk of reoffending are legitimate bases for imposing a heavier sentence on one co-offender relative to another with more favourable subjective circumstances.
  • Backdating a sentence to run concurrently with an existing sentence is a relevant structural factor when assessing the practical effect of any disparity between co-offenders' sentences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) , s s 21A(2), 21A(3), 22
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) , ss 35(1), 35(4)
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) , s 5(1)(c)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- Chamon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112
- DS v R [2014] NSWCCA 267
- Huckstadt v R [2016] NSWCCA 22
- Hung v R [2023] NSWCCA 172
- Mohr v R (2024) 390 FLR 293; [2024] NSWCCA 197
- Ooi v R [2023] NSWCCA 97
- Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
- R v JW (2010) 77 NSWLR 7; [2010] NSWCCA 49
- R v Wright [2009] NSWCCA 3
- Tuivaga v R [2015] NSWCCA 145
- Vujinovic v R [2024] NSWCCA 10
- YA v R [2026] NSWCCA 38