The Court held that a sentencing judge who expressly refers to JIRS statistics and comparable case tables and describes them as 'of assistance' has sufficiently discharged any obligation to have regard to comparative material; there is no freestanding House v The King error in failing to analyse or compare individual comparable cases in sentencing reasons. On special circumstances under s 44(2B), the Court confirmed that a modest variation of the statutory ratio is not erroneous where the non-parole period must reflect objective gravity and general deterrence, and that identifying additional factors capable of constituting special circumstances does not compel further variation of the ratio. The phrase 'sufficiently special' does not elevate the threshold to 'rare' or 'exceptional', and special circumstances are found in the majority of NSW sentencing cases.
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.