The identification of sentencing error — including a mistake as to maximum penalty and failure to apply historical sentencing practices for non-parole periods — does not automatically warrant intervention under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The Court must form the positive opinion that some other sentence was warranted in law and should have been passed, taking into account all relevant sentencing principles. Where the seriousness of the offending and deterrence considerations support the sentence actually imposed, the Court may decline to intervene notwithstanding established error. The totality principle requires consideration of offences forming part of the same episode of criminality, but offences committed years apart cannot be regarded as part of the same episode.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 43 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 43 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.