Where a sentencing judge makes a global assessment of objective seriousness for co-offenders in a joint criminal enterprise involving a standard non-parole period offence, a specific finding must be made as to the seriousness of the offence insofar as it concerns each individual offender. The residual discretion to dismiss a prosecution appeal may be exercised even where manifest inadequacy is conceded, where the offender has a compelling subjective case involving childhood deprivation and dysfunction, youth, rehabilitation prospects, and no significant principles of law require clarification. The question whether personal factors causally connected to offending may be taken into account in assessing objective seriousness under the standard non-parole period scheme, notwithstanding Muldrock, remains unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.