The case confirms that the balancing of the competing effects of mental abnormality on sentence — diminished culpability versus danger to society — is a question of judgment within the sentencing discretion, and an appellate court will not interfere absent demonstrated error of the kind identified in House v The King. Personal deterrence remains a legitimate sentencing consideration where an offender's mental condition makes them likely to continue to be dangerous.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.