Where a sentencing judge fails to give specific reasons for fixing a non-parole period that is an unusually high proportion of the head sentence, the appellate court may nonetheless uphold the sentence if the reasons for the high ratio can be discerned from the circumstances of the case, including the offender's lack of remorse, rationalisation of behaviour, and continuing risk. Reducing a non-parole period merely to achieve a more conventional ratio may amount to impermissible 'tinkering' with the sentencing judge's discretion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.