A suspended sentence for aggravated kidnapping under s.86(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 involving vigilante action with weapons is manifestly inadequate, even where the offender is young, has no prior convictions, and has strong subjective features. Where a respondent on a Crown appeal seeks exercise of the residual discretion based on rehabilitative steps, the respondent must be full and frank in evidence provided to the Court; misleading evidence will defeat the exercise of that discretion. In assessing objective gravity of a s.86(2)(a) offence, it is erroneous to treat the absence of actual bodily harm as mitigating when its presence would elevate the offence to the more serious s.86(3) category.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 53 later cases that cite this judgment.
26 of the 53 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.