A contention that a sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to rehabilitation or other mitigating factors does not constitute a specific error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion warranting appellate interference, provided the sentencing judge took the relevant evidence into account. The common sentencing practice of fixing parole eligibility after one-third of the term of imprisonment is not a rule that should be departed from only in exceptional circumstances, and an arithmetical approach to sentencing does not accord with sentencing principles.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.