cases because the effect on persons other than the deceased is irrelevant to sentencing: Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76, Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510. See P Berman 'The Role of Victims in Sentence Proceedings', (1997) 4 Crim LN [733]. In Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 at para [43] Spigelman CJ (with whom Wood CJ at CL agreed) said that Previtera may need to be reconsidered in an appropriate case. Substantial weight cannot be given to victim impact statements in sentencing offenders because they are unsworn: Slack [2004] NSWCCA 128 . However, in Aguirre v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 115 esp at para [77] it was held that an unsworn victim impact statement could be relied upon in order to find an aggravating feature of the offence. On the current state of the authorities, it is probably good practice when a victim impact statement is tendered not to object to the tender but to point out that the victim impact is unsworn and not subject to cross-examination. Material in a victim impact statement should be disclosed to the defence prior to the trial if they contained material which was sufficiently solid to cause reasonable prosecutors to think that cross-examination based on the information might elicit answers materially affecting the credibility of the witness: Lewis-Hamilton (1997) 92 A Crim R 532 (Vic CCA). Evidence of the offender If the evidence of the offender is not challenged by the prosecution in cross-examination, and is not inherently implausible, the sentencing judge is