Reliance by a sentencing judge on incorrect standard non-parole periods, even where the error originated from misinformation provided by both parties, constitutes an irrelevant consideration under House v The King principles and requires the appellate court to exercise its independent sentencing discretion under s 6(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912. Where co-offenders are sentenced at different hearings and different findings of fact are made (here, duress found for the actual killer but not proved beyond reasonable doubt as an aggravating factor against the organisers), the objective bystander would take into account those different findings in assessing whether a legitimate sense of grievance arises from different sentences.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.