A sentencing judge is entitled to be pessimistic about an offender's rehabilitation prospects based on an extensive criminal history, notwithstanding evidence of recent participation in drug rehabilitation programs and short-term employment. The fact that other offenders may have received more lenient sentences for similar offences does not establish manifest excess; the appellant must demonstrate that the difference is such that there must have been some misapplication of principle. The dissent by Refshauge J identifies a range of 12 months to two years and six months for ordinary domestic burglaries in the ACT, though this was not adopted by the majority.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.