A ground of appeal that focuses narrowly on the sentence imposed for one count in comparison with another count in a multi-count sentencing exercise tends to introduce artificiality, because the sentencing judge must balance individual sentences with totality, accumulation/concurrency, and non-parole period ratio requirements. A significant difference between head sentences for comparable counts may be explicable by a serious Form 1 offence taken into account on one count, and the Form 1 procedure contemplates that the increase may be substantial. In assessing objective seriousness of sexual offences involving penile-vaginal penetration of a child aged 12-13, a sentencing judge is entitled to refer to the risk of pregnancy even absent specific evidence of menstruation, ejaculation, or condom use.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.