Three men were convicted of murder. One man (the older one with a long criminal record) got a longer sentence than the other two (who were younger and had mitigating factors). The longer sentence was upheld because the judge's reasons were fair: the older man was the leader and had no excuses.
Key Facts
- •Donovan Thomas (applicant) convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years.
- •Two co-accused, Mulangala and Onyeasi, also convicted of murder with minimum terms of 23 years.
- •Murder involved a planned attack on Dawid Such (17) following an earlier altercation.
- •Mulangala stabbed the victim; Onyeasi and the applicant prevented escape and participated in the attack.
- •The attack was motivated by revenge related to a drug dealing business run by the applicant.
- •The applicant had a leading role, influencing the younger co-accused.
- •Applicant had extensive prior convictions; co-accused had fewer and mitigating circumstances (age, difficult upbringing, mental health issues).
- •Applicant appealed on grounds of disparity in sentencing.
Legal Principles
Sentencing is within the judge's discretion and will only be overturned if manifestly excessive.
Sentencing Act 2000, Schedule 21 paragraph 4
Disparity in sentencing is rarely a successful ground of appeal.
Court of Appeal decision
Outcomes
Appeal refused.
The difference in sentencing was justified due to the applicant's leading role, extensive criminal history, and lack of mitigating circumstances compared to his younger co-accused. The judge's factual findings were not challenged.