The aggravating factor of multiple victims under s 21A(2)(m) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 does not apply where the offender is being sentenced for multiple separate offences each involving different victims, as the multiplicity is addressed through the sentences for each offence and the totality principle. Pathological gambling does not mitigate offences that were carefully planned and skilfully executed rather than impulsive. When assessing objective seriousness of s 112(2) offences for standard non-parole period purposes, the court should have regard to the diverse range of serious indictable offences comprehended by the section and the position of larceny within that spectrum, but failure to expressly mention these matters is not error if the finding was reasonably open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.