A sentencing judge's reference to the standard non-parole period as a 'guidepost' or 'benchmark', and consideration of the head sentence consequences of applying the standard non-parole period, does not of itself constitute Muldrock error where the reasons as a whole demonstrate instinctive synthesis. Arguments on appeal that are inconsistent with concessions made at first instance will face heightened reluctance from the CCA.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.