A sentencing court cannot rely on a single unparticularised statement in a pre-sentence report that an offender 'is able to meet a financial penalty' as sufficient compliance with the mandatory requirement under s 6 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) to consider the means of the accused, particularly where the evidence otherwise discloses the offender is an undischarged bankrupt with modest income. Inadequate reasons for declining to set a non-parole period under s 45 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) constitute error but do not invalidate the sentence, and the appellate court will not intervene where the existing sentence is already lenient.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.