Statements in R v Gittani and R v Institoris that offenders convicted of possessing counterfeit currency should 'ordinarily expect to go to gaol' do not state binding principles constraining the sentencing discretion, being incompatible with ss 16A and 17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the requirement for instinctive synthesis. Comparable cases and sentencing statistics based on small samples have limited utility in establishing manifest excess where the objective and subjective circumstances differ significantly.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.