A mistake of fact in agreed facts upon which a sentencing judge relies constitutes an identifiable error under House v The King permitting appellate intervention, even where the Crown concedes the error on appeal; and where individual sentences reflect non-parole periods at a certain ratio but the overall accumulated sentence reflects a significantly higher ratio, the sentencing judge must explain the departure or it will be treated as unintended.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.