A sentencing court must resolve disputed facts before exercising the power to adjourn under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, because the court cannot assess whether an adjournment is necessary without knowing the objective seriousness of the offence. Self-serving statements by an offender in a pre-sentence report warrant very considerable caution and have little evidentiary value if unsupported by other material. The victim's attitude of forgiveness cannot justify an adjournment or otherwise interfere with the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 137 later cases that cite this judgment.
42 of the 137 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.