A non-parole period of 66% of the head sentence does not manifestly fail to give effect to a sentencing judge's stated objective of imposing a 'shorter than usual' non-parole period, particularly where the concept of a 'usual' non-parole period is imprecise and the law does not recognise a standard or normal non-parole period expressed as a proportion of the head sentence. A sentencing judge's reference to a 'shorter than usual' non-parole period may be construed as referring to the minimum term that would normally be imposed in the particular case absent mitigating factors, rather than as a reference to the general relationship between head sentences and minimum terms.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.