The Court of Criminal Appeal held that while none of the individual indicative sentences for child sexual offences were patently manifestly excessive (with the possible exception of the s 66DA(a) count against JT), the combination of high indicative sentences and a significant degree of notional accumulation rendered the aggregate sentence of 16 years unreasonable and plainly unjust, warranting resentencing to an aggregate of 13 years and 6 months. The Court confirmed that discrepancies between a Charge Certificate and Agreed Facts that operate in the offender's favour, and the belated specification of indicative non-parole periods for SNPP offences, do not of themselves disclose sentencing error. The divergence of opinion in the CCA as to the utility of comparing the sum of indicative sentences against the aggregate sentence to test the totality principle was noted but not resolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.