A non-parole period exceeding the 'usual range' of 50-75% of the head sentence in the ACT does not of itself indicate error. Where a sentencing judge imposes a lenient head sentence, the non-parole period may be proportionally longer. The absence of express reasons for departing from the usual range invites appellate scrutiny but does not establish error where the departure is explained by the sentencing factors.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 41 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 41 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.