is important to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and not to lose sight of the objective seriousness of the offence in the midst of what might otherwise be attractive subjective circumstances, full weight must be given to the competing public interest to rehabilitation of the offender and the avoidance of recidivism on his part. The principles in Fernando may be restricted to Aboriginals in a remote or rural setting: Ceissman (2001) 119 A Crim R 535, [2001] NSWCCA 73 . The principles may have little effect in the case of Aboriginals not from an isolated rural background, and not alcohol related background: Morgan (2003) 57 NSWLR 533 (this case quotes the Fernando principles in full). However in Kennedy v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 260 the court rejected an argument that Fernando principles did not apply to an offender because he did not come 'a remote part of the community' (at para [57]) and in particular paragraph (E) quoted above may apply to non-Aboriginal offenders (at para [53]). DDs and the Mentally Ill. ?oe Where the state of a person's mental health contributes to the commission of the offence in a material way, the offender's moral culpability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111 ; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at