20 Jan 2026
The court held the sentencing judge did not err in selecting a 15‑month starting point and reducing to 10 months for a guilty plea, but applying the totality principle required that 3 months of that sentence run concurrently with the sentence in DCCC 1314/2023; appeal allowed in part.
24 Jul 2025
The sentencing judge properly identified a nine‑month starting point for each offence, applied guilty plea reductions to six months for each, and lawfully applied the totality principle by ordering two months of one sentence to run concurrently with the other, producing an overall ten‑month term; given the appellant's extensive record and reoffending while on bail the sentences were not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Apr 2025
The Court refused leave to appeal because the sentencing judge properly applied sentencing principles including the totality principle; the aggregate four‑year sentence was not manifestly excessive given significant aggravating factors (extensive prior convictions, professional offending profile, use of tools and offending on bail), and appellate intervention was not justified.
26 Apr 2024
The trial judge did not commit a principle error in considering the applicant's fixed penalty records (including a pending notice) as part of the sentencing background; the 4‑week custodial sentence suspended for 18 months was not manifestly excessive when assessed in context of the aggravated conduct (continuing offence in front of enforcement officers, public‑health risk) and when viewed with concurrent sentences for other counts; there was no double punishment and no ground to disturb the exercise of sentencing discretion, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
29 Jan 2024
Although the sentencing judge had not viewed the dashcam footage and therefore overstated some aspects of the driving, the appellate court after viewing the footage concluded that the offences remained sufficiently serious; having re‑assessed culpability and mitigation (age, plea, lack of similar convictions, compensation, loss of taxi work) the court exercised discretion to suspend the aggregate custodial term. Refusal offences remain serious but, on the facts (first offender, no evidence of intoxication, no physical injury), suspension of the custodial sentence was appropriate under the tot…
8 Nov 2023
因被告兩次對同事行猥褻且具多項加刑因素（受害人醉酒／睡眠、發生於女營房、第二次具入侵性且有預謀），感化令不合適；原審將失去工作作為減刑並過分側重更生屬錯；依法應判即時監禁，經考慮認罪扣減及已完成之感化期，最終改判即時監禁8個月。
20 Apr 2023
The Court refused leave because the trial judge correctly applied established sentencing guidelines using the retail value of the processed goods, properly rejected the Rapaport figures as inappropriate, treated resale proceeds and recovery by the employer as not determinative of the sentencing starting point, and had already reflected the applicant's cooperation by allowing the appropriate plea reduction; the 9‑year total sentence was not manifestly excessive.
3 Feb 2023
Although the magistrate was mistaken in believing the earlier training‑centre order would run concurrently, re‑sentencing establishes that a training‑centre order remains the appropriate and not excessive sentence for this 16‑year‑old given his record and rehabilitative needs; appeal against sentence is dismissed.
6 Sept 2022
The appellate court dismissed the leave application because the overall sentence of 36 months was not manifestly excessive: the judge properly applied a 3‑year per‑count baseline adjusted for multiple counts to a 5‑year global starting point, granted plea discounts and an additional modest reduction for repayment (appropriately limited given the circumstances), and correctly characterized repeated entries with an entrusted key as breach of trust rather than mere opportunism.
27 Jun 2022
The Court allowed the Secretary for Justice's sentence review application, concluding the original sentences were manifestly inadequate. It set new sentencing benchmarks and increased the custodial terms: R1 to 23 months, R2 to 20 months, R3 to 15 months, R4 to 11 months, R5 to 10 months and R6 to 10 months. The Court held appropriate starting points for offence 1 (conspiracy to provide benefits) were 16 months for the leader (R1) and 14 months for others, and for offence 4 (conspiracy to defraud IEEE/REO) a starting point of 24 months (reduced for R3). Four months were deducted for guilty pl…