An inadvertent misstatement in ex tempore sentencing remarks (referring to a 'hammer' instead of a 'knife') does not vitiate the sentence where the sentencing judge's overall assessment of objective seriousness was otherwise well-founded and the error had no operative effect. Comparable cases not relied upon at first instance cannot be raised on appeal to establish manifest excess. Digital penetration lasting five minutes, involving pain, isolation of the victim, and cessation only upon rescue, was properly assessed as above mid-range seriousness for a s 66C(3) offence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.