Where evidence and submissions are directed to an offender's unlikelihood of re-offending under s 21A(3)(g) of the CSPA, a sentencing judge must make a finding on that issue separately from prospects of rehabilitation under s 21A(3)(h). A finding of 'reasonable prospects of rehabilitation' will not necessarily encompass a finding on unlikelihood of re-offending, particularly where the reference to the supporting evidence is only cursory. The case distinguishes Baker v R, where the sentencing judge had specifically addressed both factors.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.