During the period 1968-1986, non-parole periods were typically fixed at 35-50% of the head sentence, not at the ratio applicable under current sentencing legislation. A sentencing judge who applies the current ratio approach to historical offences commits error. However, identification of such error does not automatically result in a lesser sentence on resentencing where the offending is of a scale and seriousness not previously encountered during the relevant period. Planning that does not meet the threshold for s 21A(2)(n) (planned or organised criminal activity) may still increase the relative seriousness of the offence under s 21A(1)(c).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.