The case confirms that the principles in DPP v Di La Rosa regarding the significance of mental illness in sentencing are not absolute: the mere fact of mental illness does not necessarily reduce moral culpability, make the offender an inappropriate vehicle for deterrence, or require a more lenient sentence. The sentencing court must examine the relevant facts to determine whether the mental condition has the consequence contended for. Where neither the pre-sentence report nor psychiatric evidence supports a finding that mental illness contributed to the commission of the offence, the sentencing judge does not err in maintaining emphasis on deterrence.
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.