A mentally ill offender who pleads guilty rather than relying on the defence of mental illness does not thereby waive the right to have mental illness considered in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence and moral culpability. The decision in Muldrock, which holds that objective seriousness is assessed without reference to matters personal to the offender, refers specifically to the standard non-parole period concept and does not preclude consideration of an offender's mental state when assessing moral culpability as part of the instinctive synthesis. When sentencing mentally ill offenders, the sentence must remain proportionate to the criminality, even where considerations of community protection point towards a longer sentence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 23 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 23 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.