6 Jul 2007
Given the nature of the offence, the applicant's lengthy history of violence, the absence of current psychosis on psychiatric assessment and the need for deterrence and protection of youth, the starting point and two‑year custodial sentence were not excessive and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
5 May 2005
The Court found the fresh evidence lacked credibility and was likely collusive, accepted the trial judge's credibility findings as entitled to deference, concluded the convictions were not rendered unsafe, and upheld the three‑year sentences as within proper sentencing principle and discretion.
21 Aug 2002
Although a five year starting point per count for robbery with a knife was appropriate, the aggregate sentence of ten years was manifestly excessive given the short time span of the offences and mitigation; applying the totality principle the appropriate total sentence is eight years achieved by varying count 1 to six years and structuring concurrent and limited consecutive periods for the remaining counts.
28 May 1998
The magistrate had the necessary elements before her and properly considered identification and the quality of the victim's evidence; there was no material misdirection or failure to consider evidence and the conviction stands.
9 Dec 1997
Because the trial judge failed to state why he applied a discount smaller than the customary one-third, the Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to reflect the correct discount resulting in 4 years' imprisonment on each charge (to run concurrently).
23 Jul 1996
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate placed undue reliance on witness demeanour without adequately addressing the collaboration between police witnesses and material discrepancies in their accounts, producing a lurking doubt as to safety of the conviction; accordingly the conviction was quashed and sentence set aside, and no retrial was ordered as it was not in the interests of justice.
31 May 1996
The Court held that the 3-year sentence for the attempted lift robbery, given the facts and the partial discount for a guilty plea, was not excessive or wrong in principle and therefore the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
4 Jun 1991
The 12‑month sentence was manifestly inadequate for the violent assault with intent to rob; the appropriate sentence was 4 years imprisonment, but because the respondent was due for release in about nine days the court applied a 6‑month discount and imposed 3.5 years' imprisonment, setting aside the original sentence.
6 Feb 1990
The activation of the 3‑month suspended sentence was quashed because activation was not properly supported by a subsequent conviction for an offence committed during the operational period; the immediate sentence of 2 years 9 months for assault with intent to rob was not excessive and was upheld.
30 Jun 1988
The court reduced the sentence from two years to 18 months because, although the incident was alarming, the actual force used was slight and a two-year term was excessive for that level of violence.