A sentencing judge who sets out evidence of an offender's disadvantaged background and mental health issues but fails to analyse how those matters affect moral culpability or the weight of general deterrence commits appealable error. A general statement of having taken all matters into account is insufficient where significant mitigatory matters are raised by the evidence and submissions. Where expert evidence supports a causal connection between mental health conditions and offending, the sentencing judge must explain any contrary finding.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.