Where a sentencing judge finds the s 66(2) assessment inconclusive — that is, cannot determine whether full-time custody or an ICO is more likely to address the offender's risk of reoffending — other considerations under s 66(3), including general deterrence, may assume significance and be determinative of the refusal to impose an ICO. The description of an ICO as an 'act of leniency' compared to full-time custody is not an error. A finding that the applicant was assessed at medium to low risk of reoffending and had good prospects of rehabilitation does not dictate a finding that the applicant is 'unlikely to reoffend' for the purposes of s 21A(3)(g).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.