A non-parole period of approximately 66.67% of the head sentence for drug trafficking offences, where the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation, no relevant prior convictions, and supportive personal circumstances, is manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge's failure to articulate the basis for the non-parole period and to address factors peculiar to the setting of the non-parole period (particularly rehabilitation) constitutes an error warranting appellate intervention.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.