18 Jul 2022
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant affirmatively withdrew the application; following Re Manik the proper disposition when an applicant withdraws and nothing remains outstanding is dismissal of the application.
27 Jul 2020
The court found the appellant's allegations of being misled vague and unsupported, noted he refused duty counsel after a proper warning by the magistrate, concluded the plea was voluntary and informed, and held that the sentencing guideline mandates imprisonment (reduced to 15 months for plea) absent sufficient humanitarian reasons; the appellant's family circumstances were insufficient, therefore conviction and sentence are upheld.
5 Dec 2002
The court upheld the Magistrate's sentence because, applying sentencing principles and comparable authorities, the 8-month sentence was not excessive given the deliberate 9-year overstay despite an express order to leave and the appellant's mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant further reduction.
7 May 1999
The Court held that the robbery involved an invasion of private premises and a weapon, justifying a six-year starting point reduced by one-third for the guilty plea, that the immigration tariff normally runs consecutively, and therefore the combined sentence of four years and nine months was appropriate and must stand; the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
8 Jan 1999
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant's guilty pleas were unequivocal and given with proper legal advice, the appellant's factual assertions were contradicted by the prosecution material, and the magistrate's sentencing reasons were adequate and not open to fault.
17 Apr 1998
The magistrate applied correct sentencing principles, considered mitigation, youth and totality, found no aggravating factors and reached sentences within acceptable ranges; the appellate court found no basis to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
27 Nov 1997
The Court held that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were not manifestly excessive, were within proper sentencing exercise (possibly lenient), and there was no ground to disturb them; the appeal was refused and two months loss of remission/time was ordered.
11 Feb 1997
Leave to appeal was refused because the application was out of time without adequate excuse and there was no realistic prospect of success on the merits; the sentences for violent night robberies were appropriate and not manifestly excessive, with the immigration sentence ordered to run concurrently.
25 Oct 1996
The sentences were imposed in accordance with the relevant sentencing guidelines and the appellant's humanitarian and medical claims were not sufficiently compelling to justify departing from those guidelines; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
19 Sept 1996
The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to 9 months because the 15 month sentence created a glaring, unexplained disparity with a co-defendant in identical circumstances, engaging the principle in Lee Kwan Yim v. R. that like cases require parity of sentencing.