10 Mar 2009
Appeal allowed: because the appellant provided material assistance and should have been sentenced in light of that assistance (and because sentencing should not have been split), the court increased the discount to 40% and substituted sentences of 9 months on each charge with the specified concurrency/consecutivity, reducing the overall term from 24 months to 21 months.
3 Sept 2002
The Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle: a two‑year starting point per counterfeit possession was justifiable given the statutory maximum and the ongoing harm, a 40% reduction for guilty plea and assistance was appropriate, the judge applied the totality principle to the aggregate sentence, and therefore the aggregate sentence for the first and second charges was not manifestly excessive.
30 May 2001
Court granted leave out of time and, treating the hearing as the appeal, allowed the appeal in part by reducing the aggregate sentence from 15 years to 12 years (20% reduction) on the basis that the applicant warranted a substantial but limited discount for providing important, albeit peripheral, assistance; sentences on both counts were ordered to run concurrently.
20 Feb 1997
For the 2nd Applicant the court allowed the appeal against sentence, giving credit for assistance already rendered (one year) and adjusting the sentence by six months to reflect the trial judge's intended concurrency; the five year sentence was reduced to three and a half years to run concurrently with the existing 18 month sentence from the date of the present sentence. For the 3rd Applicant the out-of-time application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused and the sentence was upheld.
14 Nov 1990
The trial judge failed to give adequate discount for the first applicant's guilty plea and significant assistance by giving evidence; an 18-month discount off the 4.5-year starting point was appropriate for the 1st applicant (reducing conspiracy sentence to 3 years) and a 12-month discount was appropriate for the 2nd applicant (reducing sentence to 2 years 6 months); the 3rd applicant's appeal was dismissed because no comparable mitigating factors applied.