In the ACT, manifest inadequacy is not a precondition to relief on a Crown sentence appeal where specific error is established (per the majority of Murrell CJ and Mossop J). However, the limiting purpose of Crown appeals — to lay down principles for the governance and guidance of sentencing courts — may of itself provide a basis for the Court to decline to intervene in the exercise of its residual discretion, even in the absence of other discretionary factors such as delay, parity, or fault on the part of the Crown. Loukas-Karlsson J dissented on this point, holding that manifest inadequacy is ordinarily required. The split within the court means this issue may require further resolution.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 25 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 25 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.