Where a sentencing judge imposes a non-parole period that exceeds the usual ratio of two-thirds to three-quarters of the head sentence, and the offender has strong rehabilitation prospects and other compelling mitigating factors, the absence of reasons for the higher non-parole period may itself indicate error in the sentencing discretion. Good rehabilitation prospects may justify a shorter than usual non-parole period, and the factors that weigh heavily in fixing a head sentence will generally be differently weighted in the context of a non-parole period.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 38 later cases that cite this judgment.
12 of the 38 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.