A sentencing judge's failure to expressly refer to s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or to expressly address submissions regarding alternatives to full-time custody does not of itself constitute sentencing error, where the sentencing remarks as a whole demonstrate that the only appropriate sentence was full-time imprisonment. However, it remains desirable for sentencing judges to deal expressly with s 5 submissions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.