Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28

Farrugia v The King [2026] HCA 28 concerned whether joint representation of co-offenders at sentence created conflicting duties and vitiated the sentencing discretion. The same Senior Counsel represented Farrugia and Kanmaz, submitting that Farrugia’s offending was more serious than Kanmaz’s while arguing that both offenders’ conduct was less serious than the Crown alleged. By majority, the High Court dismissed Farrugia’s appeal. It held that a sentencing error or procedural irregularity must be material, meaning it could realistically have affected the judge’s reasoning. Without evidence of Farrugia’s advice or instructions, the record established only a possibility of conflict, not practical injustice. Edelman and Jagot JJ dissented.