51 Ground 2 having been upheld, it becomes necessary to consider whether a different sentence should have been imposed. The parties agreed that this Court should rely upon the submissions which were made before the sentencing Judge, along with the information contained in a mediation report which has been received by the Court, and on the written submissions made by the parties after the mediation report had been received. The parties have agreed that any information gathered privately by his Honour should be disregarded. I would accept that there is no information suggesting that the appellant was likely to reoffend. The mediation report was not ordered by the court under s 27(1) of the Sentencing Act. However, s 27(3) provides that whether or not a mediation report has been ordered, a mediator may give one to the sentencing court, and the parties agreed that the content of the report could be taken into account if either ground of appeal succeeded. The mediation came about because the victim's mother wanted more information about what happened on the day of the offence, including information about where the victim's children were when the appellant was in the unit. I do not propose setting out in these reasons the content of the mediation report, because the victim's mother has not been asked if she consents to the disclosure. However, what is clear from the mediation report is that the appellant did willingly participate and agree to meet with the victim's mother, which, as his counsel says in his further written submissions, reflects a strong positive step taken by the appellant towards his rehabilitation. His participation can also be accepted as evidence of the continuing remorse which was first expressed when he pleaded guilty. As it is necessary to reconsider what an appropriate sentence should be, I have re-examined the factors which bear upon the imposition of sentence. In sentencing the court must impose a sentence which is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, which must be determined by taking into account the statutory penalty for the offence, the circumstances of the commission of the offence, including the vulnerability of the victim, along with the aggravating and mitigating factors. This was an offence of the utmost seriousness. The appellant knew the victim, began watching her and at some stage formed the intention to rob her. He gained access to the unit when he knew she was alone and he killed her in the circumstances which I have set out above. He did this while the victim's children were in the unit. He cut the victim's throat and wrists to make sure she was dead. He attempted to conceal evidence of his presence. He took the murder weapon away with him. He locked the house, leaving the two small children in the unit with the body and told no-one they were there. He suffers from no psychiatric illness which might explain his conduct. As points of mitigation, he suffered depression and personality problems, but there is no reason to think that he will be likely to offend again. He pleaded guilty and the plea of guilty plus the mediation report demonstrates that he is remorseful.