7 May 2020
The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that, despite some inconsistent testimony, the complainant's identifications on the pivotal dates were reliable and supported conviction; the sentencing judge's assessment and choice of a 20‑month term fell within proper sentencing principles and was not excessive, so both conviction and sentence were upheld.
22 Dec 2017
The trial judge's interventions did not render the trial unfair and his factual findings, including acceptance of the complainant's evidence, were open on the record; convictions on three counts of indecent assault are upheld. On sentencing the court adjusted the starting point for the first count from 3 months to 1.5 months and applied totality, resulting in a final immediate imprisonment term of 4 months; the sentence is not manifestly excessive and otherwise stands.
12 Jan 1999
The appropriate global starting point for all offences was five years' imprisonment; after applying the usual one-third guilty plea discount the overall sentence should be 3 years 4 months (40 months). The Court varied the concurrency order by making 18 months of the DCCC388/98 sentences concurrent with DCCC312/98 to produce the reduced aggregate term and ordered the sentences accordingly.
16 Apr 1992
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence and was entitled to conclude on the material before him that the risk of dissipation by the 2nd defendant had not been established; therefore the discretionary Mareva relief sought against the 2nd defendant was properly refused and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Nov 1968
Even if the trial judge took account of earlier uncharged incidents forming part of a course of conduct, the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the use of violence and the appellant's abuse of his position in loco parentis; accordingly the appellate court will not interfere and applications for leave to appeal against both sentence and conviction are dismissed.