30 Jun 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to communicate with counsel and did not attend the hearing; having served the sentence and being a Form 8 legal aid holder, the conviction stands and there is no order as to costs.
31 May 2016
The magistrate's acceptance of the police witnesses and rejection of the appellant's account was not plainly wrong; the prosecution proved the elements of going equipped for stealing, theft and possession of another's identity card beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions on charges 1,2,4 and 5 are therefore upheld.
6 Mar 2013
Section 67A(1A) precludes discount for administrative detentions unrelated to the offence; the Magistrate reasonably adopted a 12‑month starting point for going equipped for stealing and was correct not to discount the appellant's prior unrelated administrative detention, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the sentence is affirmed.
11 Jan 2013
The Court held the 2‑year starting point for going equipped for stealing was justified because the appellant had passed beyond preparatory acts (opened a first‑floor window in domestic premises), carried a crowbar indicating intent to force entry, and was a professional burglar with recent custodial sentences; the guilty plea reduction and totality were properly applied, so the appeal was dismissed.
30 Oct 2009
The appeal was allowed because the prosecution's case depended entirely on an alleged admission made after a caution which was not proven beyond reasonable doubt given inconsistencies in the police account, the absence of a contemporaneous record, the appellant's credible explanations and circumstances inconsistent with the alleged intent; accordingly the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed.
24 Mar 2009
Given the appellant's admission of targeted conduct, the specialised equipment, planning and the need to deter prevalent vehicle computer thefts, a starting point of 18 months reduced to 12 months for plea was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
7 May 2008
The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge's approach—selecting a nine-month starting point and increasing it to 12 months due to the appellant's immediate reoffending and multiple prior similar convictions—was within principled sentencing discretion and not manifestly excessive.
8 Aug 2006
The magistrate lawfully preferred the prosecution's account over the applicant's, rejecting his explanations as inconsistent and implausible, and on the basis of those credibility and fact findings the conviction and the sentence of 18 months imprisonment were appropriate and must be upheld.
27 Jul 2006
The magistrate's sentences fell within the applicable tariff and properly applied the totality principle by ordering only 3 months of the second sentence to run consecutively; there were no humanitarian grounds warranting reduction, therefore the sentences were not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Dec 2005
The Court affirmed the Magistrate's factual findings: the police evidence and a voluntary admission were credible, any minor discrepancies were immaterial, and the Magistrate legitimately inferred joint venture and prior knowledge from positions, conduct and admission; accordingly the elements of s.27(1) were established and the conviction was safe.