A sentencing judge's use of the standard non-parole period as a 'benchmark or guidepost' is consistent with Muldrock, and the fact that the judge then proceeds to consider subjective matters does not of itself bespeak a two-stage approach. The assessment of where an offence lies in the range of objective seriousness is within the domain of the sentencing judge, subject only to House v The King error. For glassing offences under s 33(1)(a), general deterrence looms large and a sentence of 3 years non-parole (6 years total) for a single glassing causing a 10cm laceration with permanent scarring is within the appropriate range.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.