A sentencing judge's finding that an offence falls 'slightly below the middle of the range of objective seriousness' does not, without more, constitute Muldrock error where the judge otherwise applied an instinctive synthesis approach. The assessment of objective seriousness is reviewable only on House v The King principles, and the appellate court should be slow to depart from the sentencing judge's conclusion. Where the only explanation for delay in seeking leave to appeal is the Muldrock decision, and no Muldrock error is found, the principles of delay and finality operate decisively against an extension of time for remaining grounds.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.