The NSWCCA unanimously dismissed the appeal but with divergent reasoning: Rigg J held that the sentencing judge's reasons, read with the commencement date selected and the undisputed positions at the hearing, sufficiently demonstrated by implication that pre-sentence custody solely referable to the sentence offences and the period of revoked parole were taken into account, and that the balance of the backdate reflected a discretionary totality determination. Fagan J held that the sentencing judge's reasons were inadequate because the global 9-month backdate failed to differentiate between three distinct discretionary considerations (totality/accumulation with Local Court sentences, credit for solely referable pre-sentence custody, and credit for time served under revoked parole), but would not resentence because no lesser sentence was warranted. The case confirms that where a commencement date proposed by the defence was conditional on a particular outcome (here, success on a severity appeal that was dismissed), the sentencing judge is not obliged to explain departure from that date once the precondition fails.
The full text is available to signed-in members.