A sentencing judge's assessment of objective seriousness as 'well above' the middle of the range for armed robbery is open where the offence involved extensive planning over six months, use of an inside man, two shotguns, disguises, a stolen getaway car, and $34,520 stolen from a vulnerable victim. A different assessment by the sentencing judge of a co-offender does not of itself establish error; the question is whether the assessment under challenge was open. Quoting an entire victim impact statement in sentencing remarks does not constitute giving it undue regard.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.