12 Feb 1974
The razor-blade was an item deliberately adapted for theft, making 'going equipped for stealing' the principal offence; because sentences must reflect the specific facts and deterrence needs, the twelve-month sentence was not excessive and is therefore affirmed.
27 Nov 1972
Given the offence of stealing a purse from a passenger and the appellant's sixteen previous convictions including larcenies, a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment was proportionate and not excessive; the appeal is dismissed.
1 Sept 1969
The appellate court found the aggregate five-year term excessive on the facts (small amounts in most offences, one victim a child, one a woman, and comparable appellate precedent of three years) and ordered the sentence on the first charge to run concurrently with the second and third charges, reducing the effective total imprisonment to four years, to be dated from conviction.
2 Jun 1969
The convictions were quashed because the prosecution produced no evidence that the alleged offences were committed and the only evidence implicating the appellant were ambiguous, retracted extra-judicial statements which lacked corroboration and could not be reliably assessed; consequently the convictions, sentences and forfeiture had to be set aside.
5 May 1969
Despite the grave seriousness of the offences the appellate court allowed the appeal in part and substituted a three-year probation order with usual terms plus a residential condition because updated probation reports and the appellant's agreement indicated probation was appropriate.
28 Apr 1969
Given the appellant's extensive record including recent custodial sentences for triad membership and larceny, and the short interval since release, the court concluded the magistrate's 15 months' sentence was not excessive and refused to interfere; mitigating claims of drug addiction and family circumstances were insufficient to warrant reduction.
7 Mar 1969
Given the facts, the magistrate's assessment and the ordering of the two 12‑month sentences to run concurrently, the sentences were not manifestly excessive and the appeal must be dismissed.
17 Dec 1968
Given the appellant's significant prior convictions including robbery and multiple offences of dishonesty and drugs, the magistrate was justified in imposing a custodial sentence of 15 months and the sentence was not excessive; the appeal is dismissed.
12 Dec 1968
Consecutive sentences totaling 23 months were appropriate and not improper given the appellant's prior convictions, admissions and limited weight of his plea and mitigation; appeal dismissed.
26 Nov 1968
The sentence was upheld because the appellant had five prior similar convictions making the 9‑month term appropriate; the asserted failure to be told the reason for arrest, even if accepted, did not constitute sufficient grounds to reduce the sentence.