Where a plea to perjury simpliciter is accepted in satisfaction of aggravated perjury, the sentencing judge must not take into account the offender's intention to procure acquittal as an aggravating factor, as that intention is an element of the more serious offence. A complainant who is cross-examined on a false premise created by the offender's perjury is a 'victim' of the perjury offence for the purposes of victim impact statements under s 49 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), and the harm from such cross-examination is properly characterised as harm suffered 'because of' the offence, distinct from harm arising from ordinary cross-examination processes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.