A sentencing judge who finds inconsistencies in some aspects of an offender's history provided to expert report writers is not entitled to reject the entire subjective case; matters that are largely consistent across reports, independently established, or not dependent on the disputed history must still be considered. The practice of addressing offenders directly in sentencing remarks is not encouraged, as it risks the appearance of a lack of judicial detachment. Where sentencing error is established but re-exercise of the discretion would produce a sentence of at least the same magnitude, the appeal will be dismissed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.