For serious child sexual offences, rehabilitation prospects and third-party hardship cannot be given such weight as to overwhelm general deterrence and denunciation in fixing the non-parole period. A sentencing judge who relies on 'instinctive synthesis' must still expose the reasoning process leading to the final conclusion, particularly where the result is lenient. The absence of reoffending during a period between offending and arrest does not, without more, justify a non-parole period that is disproportionately low relative to the head sentence. The question of whether third-party hardship must meet a particular threshold before being taken into account was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.