A complaint that a sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors such as remorse, rehabilitation prospects, and psychiatric evidence does not constitute appellable error under House v The King, where the sentencing remarks demonstrate that those matters were taken into account. The case also reaffirms that comparison with sentences in other cases is not the method by which manifest excess is determined.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.