30 Nov 2012
The court held the 4 month sentence for theft/snatching was not excessive given prior convictions and seriousness of the offence and that, under section 109C(1), activation of the 14 day suspended sentence was appropriate and not unjust; accordingly the appeal against the 4 months was dismissed and the suspended sentence was activated unaltered.
15 Dec 2009
The magistrate was entitled to accept PW1's identification and to reject the appellant's alibi based on the cogent reasons given and CCTV absence; sentencing for the second offence was within discretion including ordering consecutive terms, but totality required reduction so the concurrent period was adjusted by one month resulting in an aggregate four months' imprisonment.
18 Jul 2008
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate properly relied on psychiatric evidence showing long-term schizophrenia, psychosis at the time of the offence, lack of insight and inability to maintain follow-up treatment; the four month hospital order was recommended by psychiatrists and was not excessive in the circumstances.
6 Mar 2006
The magistrate's treatment of apparent inconsistencies was reasonable given differing witness roles and chaotic circumstances, and her interventions were legitimate judicial management that did not deny a fair trial; the 3rd appellant's sentence was properly justified on triad‑related findings, prior convictions and lack of remorse, so both convictions and sentence appeals fail.
13 Jan 2006
The convictions and original hospital order were quashed because the appellant lacked the requisite mental capacity at the time of the plea and because Charge 1 was not made out owing to an agreement to delay payment; the court nonetheless had power under s.45 to make a new hospital order for Charge 2 as the act was proved and conditions were met, but limited the order to a short period given clinical improvement.
22 Jan 2003
Compensation order quashed because the stolen goods were returned in good condition and no loss was shown; the two offences were sufficiently inter-related that some concurrency was required under the totality principle; the starting point for making off without payment was excessive and reduced to a term of 18 days with 9 days to run concurrently with the 4 month sentence for theft, producing an aggregate sentence of 4 months and 9 days, and the conviction/sentence to run consecutively to TWCC 2590/2002.
1 Jun 2000
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court found no error of principle or manifest excess in sentencing: the judge considered youth and reports, correctly applied the law including the s.109A Schedule 3 exception, reasonably assessed greater culpability and earlier cooperation of co-defendants to justify disparity, and appropriately reduced the guilty plea discount due to lateness of plea, yielding 50 months per robbery which was within the correct range.
20 Jan 1999
Accepting the prosecution's direct and identification evidence and the irresistible inferences, the Magistrate's findings were safe; there was no grave and substantial injustice and leave to appeal was refused.
25 Jan 1996
The evidence showed corruption and there was no evidence of dishonesty or complaint by the restaurant; therefore the charge under s.18C was misconceived and the conviction could not stand, so the appeal is allowed.
5 Aug 1992
The admitted confessional statements and corroborating circumstances established the appellants' intent to commit robbery; allegations of bias and procedural failings lacked substance and could not undermine the convictions; the sentences imposed were not excessive given the need for deterrence against illegal immigrants committing robbery and are therefore upheld.