appeal against sentence — five counts of breaching a control order contrary to s 104.27 of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed four years’ imprisonment with 3 year non-parole period — control order issued on basis that offender part of group that supported theology and activities of Islamic State — group considered willing and able to commit terrorist act — offender closely connected to activities of relative charged with terrorist offences — offender did not challenge findings of sentencing judge or argue aggregate sentence excessive — sole ground of appeal whether sentencing judge took into account utilitarian considerations when allowing discount for guilty plea — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — reference to saving need for witnesses exemplified subjective willingness, not utilitarian value consideration — sentencing judge in error in not considering utilitarian value of guilty plea — Court obliged to exercise sentencing discretion afresh — objective seriousness — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — objective seriousness of offender’s deliberate and repeated defiance of control orders, coupled with need for re-sentencing exercise to reflect continuing need for general and specific deterrence, dictates that no lesser sentence warranted in law — leave to appeal granted — appeal dismissed
