Where co-offenders have separate statements of agreed facts with different content, a sentencing judge must determine each offender's role by reference to the facts in evidence in that offender's case alone. Reliance on the co-offender's agreed facts, which attribute a higher level of culpability, constitutes error within House v The King. Agreed facts for co-offenders should clearly delineate the roles of each offender and not be unnecessarily complex. Hardship to an offender's family that falls short of the Edwards 'highly exceptional' standard may still be taken into account as a mitigatory factor or in finding special circumstances, but the impact of family hardship on the offender's mental wellbeing as a discrete subjective factor (per Markovic) requires evidence of sufficient distress and should be raised by counsel at first instance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.