The Supreme Court held that the Local Court erred by fixing a non-parole period calculated on the total of both the Supreme Court and Local Court sentences, which had the effect of authorising custody beyond what the sentences themselves provided for. On re-sentencing for recklessly endangering serious harm and aggravated assault arising from unprovoked group violence, the Court imposed a total sentence of one year and ten months backdated to the Supreme Court release date and suspended after eight months, finding that a suspended sentence rather than a non-parole period was appropriate given the offender's youth, reasonable rehabilitation prospects, and the below mid-range seriousness of the offending. The Court confirmed that a Local Court cannot fix a non-parole period that effectively extends incarceration beyond what the operative sentences of imprisonment authorise.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.