A sentencing judge who assesses an offence as being in the middle range of objective seriousness but imposes a non-parole period of only 30% of the standard non-parole period, without providing reasons for the departure as required by s 54B(4), will be found to have imposed a manifestly inadequate sentence. The approach of simply balancing aggravating and mitigating features under s 21A after determining the offence is in the middle range does not conform with the principles in R v Way.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.