Grounds of appeal against sentence framed as failures to give proper weight to particular matters do not properly invoke appellate jurisdiction; the only effective ground is manifest excess or specific identified error. The concept of a 'crushing' sentence may lack utility beyond the established principles of manifest excess and proportionality. Sections 66 and 74 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) prevent an appellate court from reducing a nonparole period when reducing a head sentence where an intervening re-sentencing has reset the nonparole period.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.