3 Jun 2025
Leave to appeal was granted limitedly: the court found grounds challenging overall excessiveness (ground 2) and the 8‑month bail enhancement (ground 3) were reasonably arguable and merited appeal; grounds asserting wholly concurrent sentences and discounts for consumption or personal mitigation (grounds 1,4,5) were not reasonably arguable and were refused.
30 Apr 2002
The Court held D3's conviction was safe because the judge correctly assessed credibility (including caution with accomplice testimony) and the evidence proved the conspiracy to defraud; the sentences for D1 and D5 were within judicial discretion, not manifestly excessive, and discounts applied were appropriate given the facts and prosecution's choices; offending while on bail was a proper aggravating factor and did not amount to double punishment.
14 Nov 1997
The out-of-time application in No.11/1997 was dismissed because the applicant gave an unsatisfactory explanation for delay and the appeal had no prospect of success; the application in No.237/1997 was dismissed because the sentencing judge had properly applied the totality principle, the sentence was not excessive and the offence committed while on bail was an aggravating feature.
12 Nov 1997
The Court held the Deputy Judge correctly adopted a 6-year starting point for the quantity involved, properly treated the applicant's commission of the offence while on bail as an aggravating factor, applied an appropriate one-third discount for the guilty plea and therefore the sentence of 4 years 8 months was not manifestly excessive; the appeal was dismissed.