A sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness with more specificity than may now be necessary after Muldrock v The Queen does not of itself demonstrate error, provided the ultimate sentence reflects an instinctive synthesis of all objective and subjective features. The decision in Dionys v R, which found Muldrock error in the same sentencing judge's remarks for a co-offender, was distinguished as based on wholly separate remarks on sentence and decided before the post-Muldrock jurisprudence had developed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.