Where a sentencing judge finds special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the overall effective sentence must reflect that finding; an overall non-parole period ratio exceeding the statutory 75% ratio is inconsistent with such a finding and constitutes appealable error. Co-offenders convicted of materially different numbers of offences arising from the same criminal enterprise must receive differentiated sentences to avoid a justifiable sense of grievance. For coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act, exact parallel of circumstances is not required; the purpose of coincidence evidence includes facilitating proof of a circumstantial case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.