Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed; the aggregate sentence of 7 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months was upheld. Although Boulten J (Kirk JA and Roberts J agreeing) found the indicative sentence for Offence 5 (dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception) was excessive when viewed in isolation, this did not establish that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive when assessed against the totality of the criminality. The Court confirmed the prevailing view that even where an indicative sentence is found to be excessive due to latent error, re-sentencing does not follow where the aggregate sentence itself is not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The decision is unanimous.
The full text is available to signed-in members.