The unlikelihood of reoffending under s 21A(3)(g) and prospects of rehabilitation under s 21A(3)(h) are separate and distinct mitigating factors, but a sentencing judge is not in error for failing to address s 21A(3)(g) where no submission was made on that issue at first instance and the evidence does not support such a finding. Defence counsel bear the responsibility of raising mitigating factors they wish the sentencing judge to consider.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.