The Court of Appeal held that where a sentencing judge expressly states they have read and considered a pre-sentence report, the failure to specifically mention an attachment to that report (here, a Separations Report detailing conditions of remand) does not establish that the judge failed to take it into account. The Court inferred the sentencing judge had regard to the conditions of remand as part of the applicant's circumstances in reducing the release date from the statutory default of 70% to 50%. Even if error were established, the Court held no different sentence would be imposed given the applicant's role as principal offender in armed robberies, 22-page criminal history at age 15, lack of remorse, and poor rehabilitation prospects.
The full text is available to signed-in members.