The discretion to fix a non-parole period for federal offences is not constrained by any presumptive ratio to the head sentence, and comparable cases decided before Hili v The Queen must be treated with caution as they may reflect the erroneous 'norm' approach. The 75% minimum in s 19AG does not operate as a ceiling for non-parole periods for offences outside that section. A sentencing judge's failure to expressly refer to an offender's admissions at trial does not establish a failure to consider them, particularly where no submission was made on the point.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.