The Supreme Court held that a sentencing court is not obliged to forewarn an offender of its intention to impose a non-parole period rather than a suspended sentence where that outcome was foreseeable on the known facts, and where counsel had the opportunity to address the issue. The Court held that prosecutorial silence or a neutral stance on the sentencing disposition does not constitute a 'concession' that triggers the DL v The Queen obligation to inform the offender before departing from it. The Court further held that attributing less weight to matters in a favourable s 103 supervision report, where the adverse conclusions were obviously open on the agreed facts (here, the offender's breach of bail and DVO conditions shortly after their imposition), does not constitute a denial of procedural fairness requiring prior notice to the offender.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.