A sentencing judge who is minded to make adverse factual findings beyond the agreed facts — including inferences about prior criminal conduct, the identity of participants, the likelihood of financial exchanges, and the source of unexplained funds — must raise those matters with the parties and give the offender an opportunity to respond by evidence or submissions. Failure to do so constitutes a denial of procedural fairness warranting the quashing of the sentence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.