An appellate court should not accede to requests to listen to sound recordings of a summing up where a corrected transcript is available and undisputed, and the request is not to resolve a dispute about what was said or fill an omission. For historical child sexual assault offences committed during the operation of the Probation and Parole Regulation 1984, the non-parole period ratio applicable at the time of the offences is a relevant consideration but does not necessarily require the sentencing court to replicate that ratio. The majority and dissent disagreed on whether the sentencing judge's application of a 60% non-parole period ratio (rather than one-third to one-half) constituted error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.