The Court held that where a submission is made that an offender's moral culpability is reduced due to mental health or cognitive impairment, the sentencing judge must make an express finding on moral culpability and then address how that finding bears on the weight to be given to sentencing purposes, particularly general deterrence; a failure to do so constitutes error even in ex tempore remarks. The Court further held that where the parties agree moral culpability is reduced but dispute the extent of the reduction, the sentencing judge must resolve that dispute and cannot rely on the parties' agreement as a substitute for reasoned findings. On re-sentence, the Court declined to admit a new psychologist's report diagnosing the applicant where the material could have been obtained for the original hearing, finding no exceptional circumstances, but ultimately dismissed the appeal because the independently determined sentence was no lower than that originally imposed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.