The observation by Refshauge J in Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 that sentences for residential burglary in the ACT are generally within a range of one to two and a half years does not establish a binding sentencing range; a sentence falling outside that range does not in isolation establish manifest excess. There is no general rule or practice that sentences for theft associated with a burglary must be made wholly concurrent with the burglary sentence. A challenge to the degree of concurrency and accumulation requires demonstration of a House v The King error in the exercise of discretion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 33 later cases that cite this judgment.
20 of the 33 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.