A pre-Muldrock sentence is not necessarily vitiated by error merely because the sentencing judge followed R v Way; the question is whether a fair reading of the sentencing remarks reveals a two-stage approach or that the standard non-parole period had determinative significance. Classification of an offence as falling at a particular point in the range of objective seriousness does not of itself expose Muldrock error. Where provocation is established as a mitigating factor, it is a fundamental quality of the offending that may reduce objective seriousness, but the absence of provocation does not increase objective seriousness. Evidence of long-term illicit drug use may reduce the weight given to good character even where the drug use is not directly connected to the offence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 36 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 36 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.