The presumption of innocence does not require a sentencing judge to ignore persuasive evidence of uncharged offences when assessing an offender's prospects of rehabilitation; the onus lies on the offender to establish rehabilitation. Disparity between co-offenders' sentences enlivens a discretion to reduce a sentence but does not require elimination of the disparity. Any increase in sentence for Form 1 offences should be appreciably lower than if those offences had been separately charged, and care must be taken to avoid double counting personal deterrence where the offender's attitude already warrants significant weight on that factor.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.