A sentencing judge is not obliged to identify and warn counsel about every concession in Crown written submissions with which the judge may disagree; the obligation to warn arises only where the judge has given a positive indication of adopting a particular approach and a party has relied on that indication. Where disparity between co-offenders' sentences arises because one sentence is manifestly inadequate, the Court retains a discretion whether to reduce the higher sentence and may decline to do so where the higher sentence is itself appropriate having regard to the statutory framework. Drug addiction and substance-induced psychiatric conditions in remission are generally not mitigating factors, though Basten JA cautioned that a more nuanced approach may be required.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.