The Court held that a sentencing judge does not deny procedural fairness by rejecting an unchallenged expert opinion on the causal connection between mental health and offending where the Crown's submissions put that connection in issue; the failure to call further evidence or make further submissions was a missed forensic opportunity, not procedural unfairness. The Court endorsed and restated the process for applying Bugmy principles: no causal link between disadvantaged background and offending is required to reduce moral culpability, planning is not a barrier to such a finding, and the essential question is whether the offender bears the same moral responsibility as a person with a conventional upbringing. The appeal succeeded only on a conceded arithmetical error in the commencement date of the non-parole period, which was corrected without a full re-sentencing exercise.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.