A sentencing judge must explicitly assess the objective seriousness of each offence as an essential element of the sentencing exercise, even where no standard non-parole period applies; failure to do so invalidates the sentencing exercise, particularly where the assessment cannot be gleaned from the remarks as a whole. An offender's mental illness that is not causally connected to the offence may still be relevant to sentencing by reducing the significance of general deterrence and by making custody more onerous, but its effect on moral culpability is limited. Loss of profession, reputation and public standing flowing naturally from conviction do not constitute extra-curial punishment warranting separate mitigation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.