Where a sentencing judge has a choice between a sentence within range that triggers mandatory visa cancellation under the Migration Act and a slightly lower sentence within range that does not, the overall sentence may be manifestly excessive if the higher sentence undermines the acknowledged sentencing purpose of rehabilitation through deportation. However, there is no hard and fast principle that the lower sentence must be imposed; the risk of deportation is one factor in the intuitive synthesis. On renewed applications for leave to appeal under s 315(2) CPA, the reconstituted Court has power to grant leave to amend grounds of appeal, and reformulation of existing grounds does not constitute an abuse of process.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 30 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 30 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.