A sentencing judge's conclusion that a wholly suspended sentence is not open due to the offender's prior criminal history does not constitute an impermissible restriction on the sentencing discretion, provided the judge treats the history as relevant to the exercise of discretion rather than as a fresh punishment for prior offences. A significant prior history of dishonesty offences, including substantial custodial sentences, can properly lead a sentencing judge to require actual custody despite the presence of significant mitigating factors.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.