A sentencing judge's musing about the mathematical relationship between the standard non-parole period and a head sentence does not constitute Muldrock error where the judge effectively disregarded the standard non-parole period because the offence was assessed as significantly above mid-range, and applied an instinctive synthesis approach. The detection of Muldrock error requires examination of the sentencing remarks as a whole, not isolated passages, and is not assisted by metaphorical characterisations such as 'springboard' or 'guidepost'. Sentencing statistics do not of themselves demonstrate error, particularly where the factual circumstances are complex.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.