A non-parole period of 80% of the head sentence does not necessarily indicate sentencing error; the high ratio may be explicable by a modest head sentence reduced on account of factors such as the prospect of deportation. Where the head sentence is merciful, the non-parole period should still reflect the minimum period justice requires before parole eligibility. Sentencing judges should state reasons when fixing a non-parole period at a high proportion of the head sentence, though failure to do so is not necessarily an error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.