Post-Muldrock, a sentencing judge must undertake an evaluative assessment of objective seriousness but is not required to attach a specific label (such as 'below mid-range') to that assessment; the appellate task is to consider whether, reading the sentencing judgment fairly as a whole, there has been a failure to make the essential assessment. Section 55(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) establishes a default position of concurrency, not a presumption in favour of concurrency, and the discretion to accumulate remains unconstrained. Different charges and differently structured sentences (aggregate sentence versus single offence with Form 1) may explain apparent disparity between co-offenders.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 28 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 28 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.