A sentencing judge's reliance on an incorrect maximum penalty (here, 14 years instead of 12 years for fraud) is a material error vitiating the sentencing discretion, requiring the appellate court to re-exercise the discretion afresh under [name withheld] v The Queen. However, if the appellate court independently concludes the same sentence is appropriate, it may grant leave but dismiss the appeal without re-sentencing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.