So-called comparable cases do not set a mandatory benchmark or binding precedent as to the sentence reasonably open in a subsequent case. A sentence is not manifestly inadequate simply because it is similar to a sentence in another case involving less serious offending. The historical range of 60-75% for the ratio between non-parole period and head sentence is not apt for low sentences. A unique combination of mitigating circumstances may explain a very lenient sentence without rendering it manifestly inadequate, though such a case provides no guidance for future cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.