A sentencing judge's misstatement that ejaculation occurred on 'some occasions' rather than one occasion, where the judge expressly identified ejaculation as a factor in assessing seriousness, has the capacity to affect the sentencing outcome and requires re-sentencing. Facts adverse to an offender on sentence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the agreed facts must be carefully examined to determine what findings they support. The factors identified in Burr v R for assessing objective seriousness under the old s 66EA remain applicable under the new provision.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.