Sentencing judges have a supervisory role under s 33(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and should decline to accept a Form 1 where the inclusion of serious offences would deny the court the opportunity to impose a sentence properly reflecting the totality of the offender's criminality. A sentencing judge's rejection of uncontested expert evidence of low intelligence, based on courtroom observation, does not constitute appellable error where no specific error in the House v The King sense is demonstrated.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.