An unexplained disparity between sentences imposed on multiple counts of similar offending does not of itself disclose sentencing error where the sentences are within range and a rational explanation for the differences can be discerned on close examination. A sentencing judge's failure to adopt the preferred 'moderate and cumulate' approach does not require resentencing if the total effective sentence is within the appropriate range. Drug addiction does not necessarily mitigate culpability for dishonesty offences, particularly where the prevalence of drug-motivated offending emphasises the need for general and specific deterrence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.