A sentencing judge who agrees to hear further submissions on a sentencing option but then proceeds to sentence without doing so commits a process error in the House v The King sense, justifying appellate intervention. The appellant is not to be prejudiced by counsel's failure to remind the judge of the need for further submissions. Where suspension of a prison term is a live issue and at the forefront of submissions, reasons must be given for declining to suspend.
The full text is available to signed-in members.