The Court held that a sentencing judge's mere recitation of an offender's subjective circumstances does not demonstrate that the mandatory consideration of prospects of rehabilitation under s 16A(2)(n) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) has been taken into account; where sufficient evidence exists, the judge must engage in an evaluative process and articulate a finding about those prospects. Kirk JA identified three pertinent factors for determining whether a matter is 'relevant and known to the court' even absent submissions: whether and how the matter was raised in submissions; the prominence of the matter in other material before the court; and the significance of the matter to the sentencing exercise. Although error was established in failing to assess rehabilitation prospects, the appeal was dismissed because no lesser sentence was warranted in law on re-sentencing.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.