When a sentencing judge imposes a single sentence under s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), the majority holds that the appellate question is whether the overall sentence is manifestly excessive, not whether individual notional sentences should have been concurrent or cumulative. However, the dissent argues that s 18A does not displace the obligation to consider concurrency principles, particularly for offences committed over a short period with a common causal factor. The case illustrates the ongoing tension in South Australian sentencing law between the 'overall sentence' approach and the requirement to consider concurrency as a distinct step.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.