A sentencing judge's finding that an offender has 'substantially rehabilitated' does not necessarily incorporate a finding that the offender is unlikely to re-offend under s 21A(3)(g), particularly where the judge also finds no amelioration of specific deterrence is warranted. The two mitigating factors in s 21A(3)(g) and (h) are conceptually distinct and each requires a separate assessment. However, sentencing errors may not result in a lesser sentence where the appellate court, upon re-exercising the discretion, reaches the same result.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.