The principles requiring a sentencing judge to advert to the effect of accumulated sentences where the effective non-parole period exceeds 75% of the total effective term are not hard and fast rules and involve matters of degree; where the excess is trivial (here 1.47%) and the sentencing judge has considered totality at length, no express advertence is required. A sentencing judge's refusal to find special circumstances based on an offender's past failure to take advantage of community rehabilitation opportunities does not constitute the Muldrock error of structuring a sentence on the basis the offender would benefit from treatment in custody.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.