UNKNOWN
Yes.  There are a number of submissions there.  Firstly, obviously you are not entitled to disregard (f) because it is one of a basket of factors that are obviously statutorily obliged to take into account.  The wording of the section is of some importance.  It says in relation to the objective pursued which is something entirely different to the objective attained and I would submit that that phraseology is not used by mistake because one is correct in suggesting that with the conspiracy which is in fact - never goes further than the conspiracy.  Well, ipso facto, there wouldn't be a test of proportionality to be applied because as my learned friend argued, nothing ever happened.  But that's not what the section says because if you were to take that argument as logical conclusion, it would then imply that in all conspiracies, proportionality never comes to be assessed and we submit that that would do offence to the language of the section itself.  You will also recall that - and again, I do not have any text books or references here, but my recollection is that if you are found guilty of the crime of conspiracy, you may in fact be sentenced to the same sentence that you would be entitled to.