Educational achievement does not operate as a circumstance of aggravation in sentencing, but may properly be taken into account as relevant to prospects of rehabilitation and the considerations in Veen v The Queen (No 2). An error by a sentencing judge as to the maximum penalty does not require a proportionate mathematical reduction in sentence where the sentence imposed is so far short of either the correct or incorrect maximum as to render the error immaterial. Sentences imposed on co-offenders following Crown appeals, which reflect the Crown appeal discount and factors such as demonstrated rehabilitation and delay, do not provide an appropriate benchmark for parity comparisons by co-offenders who did not share those circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.