A sentencing judge who proceeds on an incorrect statutory threshold for a drug quantity (here, the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine) acts on a 'wrong principle' within House v The King, analogous to identifying the wrong maximum sentence. Where confidential assistance material is tendered under s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a sentencing judge is not required to expressly address each factor in s 23(2) where doing so would compromise the confidentiality of the assistance. On resentencing following established error, the Court may receive evidence of family circumstances occurring since the sentence hearing, not merely evidence of the appellant's progress in custody.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.