The Court of Criminal Appeal did not determine the substantive appeal but instead ordered the matter to be relisted before a bench of five to resolve whether s44 of the Sentencing Act 1989 (as enacted by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) had the effect of broadening the meaning of 'special circumstances' beyond the rehabilitation-focused test in Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446, as suggested by Sperling J in R v Hameed. The question of whether the sentencing judge erred by confining himself to the 'strict approach' to special circumstances was left unresolved pending the reconstituted hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.