A failure by a sentencing judge to specifically perform a calculation of the proportion that the sum of the non-parole period and pre-sentence custody bears to the total term does not necessarily establish error where the judge has found special circumstances. The non-parole period must itself appropriately reflect the criminality of the offence. Disparity between co-offenders' sentences that leads to appellate intervention must be 'gross, marked or glaring', and where the sentencing judge has recognised and given effect to the parity principle, the appellate court will be cautious and not overly willing to intervene.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 34 later cases that cite this judgment.
16 of the 34 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.