Where a sentencing judge proceeds on a fundamentally mistaken understanding of the nature of the counts (here, failing to recognise a count of digital penetration), this constitutes a fundamental error in the sentencing process requiring the appellate court to sentence afresh. For 15 sexual offences against six victims including three counts of digital penetration, 6 years' imprisonment was the appropriate total sentence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.