16 Feb 1996
Leave to appeal was refused because the offence was serious, the sentencing judge acted within appropriate discretion, the sentence of two years was not shown to be excessive and the applicant's claimed remorse was undermined by his not guilty plea and efforts to avoid conviction.
20 May 1986
The appellate court held that the sentencing judge erred by inadequate consideration of mitigating factors (notably the real risk the appellant faced in testifying) and of the Crown's failure to place all mitigating facts before the court; the appropriate starting point for this offence was ten years, a 50% discount for the appellant's cooperation and risk reduced that to five years, and the existing four-year sentence was not manifestly inadequate so the appeal was dismissed.
22 Aug 1985
Magistrate's factual finding that the victim identified the appellant as the caller, together with the threat to publicise information that would injure the daughter's reputation and the intent to coerce the victim, satisfied s.24(b)(ii); publication need not be an illegal act; conviction and six months' imprisonment upheld.