A sentencing judge's reference to an offender's interest in the outcome of a disputed facts hearing does not constitute a misdirection under Robinson v The Queen, provided the judge is merely including in the assessment whether a particular interest would be served by the evidence rather than directing that evidence should be evaluated on the basis of witness interest. The acceptance or rejection of evidence of remorse is a discretionary matter to which House v The King principles apply. A failure to attach the label 'moral culpability' to any specific finding does not reveal sentencing error where the finding is implicit in the sentencing remarks.
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.