A finding of objective seriousness in sentencing is reviewable only by reference to House v The King principles, and a complaint that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to a factor (such as onerous gaol conditions) does not constitute an appellable error. Where onerous conditions of protective custody are relied upon in mitigation, they must be established by evidence; self-serving, untested and out-of-court statements by offenders may be given little weight. The mitigatory effect of lack of premeditation diminishes where the offender fails to seek medical treatment for the victim over an extended period.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.