A shift from a 60% non-parole period ratio to an 80% ratio upon cumulation of sentences requires adequate explanation, particularly where the change in rehabilitation prospects is only from 'reasonable' to 'guarded'. The case also illustrates that when fixing a new single non-parole period under s 14(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, the sentencing judge must ensure the new period adequately reflects the findings made in both the earlier and later sentencing exercises. Practitioners should be alert to the practical problem of ensuring pre-sentence detention declarations are properly credited against new single non-parole periods.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.