The case confirms that the assessment of objective seriousness of an offence of accessory after the fact to murder is reviewable on House v The King principles, and that an appellate court should be slow to disturb the sentencing judge's characterisation. The case provides a comprehensive survey of sentencing outcomes for accessory after the fact to murder across a wide range of factual circumstances. The tension between the Mulato approach (House v The King error required) and the Carroll dicta (appellate court may form its own view on objective scale) remains unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.