The case consolidates the principles governing the relevance of delay to sentencing, confirming that delay caused by the exercise of the right to contest criminal charges can never be regarded as the 'fault' of the accused, and that it is the effect of delay on the accused rather than its cause that is relevant to mitigation. A sentence of 6 years' imprisonment for obtaining $595,000 by deception from three victims was reduced to 4 years and 6 months where the offender was 71 years old, in serious ill-health, had no prior criminal history, and had experienced nearly 6 years' delay between arrest and sentence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.