28 Sept 2021
The Court refused leave: the sentencing judge's assessment and notional starting point of 13 years (enhanced to 14 years for Form 8 status) was not manifestly excessive given the planning, use of a 10-inch knife, serious injuries, high value of property stolen and joint culpability; the ground of appeal was not reasonably arguable.
22 Jan 2020
The Court held the trial judge's chosen starting points (9 years for principal participants; 10.5 years for organisers) were appropriate given the detailed planning, weaponry and high value of the target, and that the reductions for timely guilty pleas and assistance were properly and reasonably applied; the appellants failed to show the sentences were manifestly excessive, so leave to appeal was refused.
12 Dec 2019
The Court upheld the 33-month sentence because the established baseline of 30 months for non-residential burglary was properly applied and a 3-month uplift for the appellant's immigration status and the planned nature of the offence was justified; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and therefore should be maintained.
26 Aug 2014
Convictions are upheld because the magistrate's acceptance of the accomplice's testimony was rational and supported by the evidence; the sentence was excessive given the low monetary value of the thefts and the appellant's first‑offender status, but collusion with a colleague and lack of remorse justified immediate custody at a reduced level; original sentence of 4 months set aside and replaced by concurrent/partly concurrent terms totaling 8 weeks imprisonment.
9 May 2014
On rehearing the judge applied established sentencing principles, accepted the offence was opportunistic and the appellant's good character and mitigation, and concluded the appropriate sentence was 9 months imprisonment, reducing the original 14 months because the original sentence was higher than warranted by those factors.
31 Oct 2013
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate lawfully and reasonably sentenced the appellant to 15 days' immediate imprisonment after properly considering the aggravating features (assault on a bus driver while driving causing real danger, subsequent assault on police, and lack of remorse) and relevant authority protecting officers; the sentence was not manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
1 Sept 2011
The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate correctly exercised sentencing discretion by adopting a 3-month starting point, applying a 1-month reduction for the guilty plea and considering the appellant's 14 prior convictions and similarity of past offending; the resulting 2-month imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant interference.
19 Apr 2006
The starting point of 8 years fell within the applicable guideline range of 7–10 years for 10–70g of methamphetamine; after applying the one-third discount for the guilty plea the sentence of 5 years 4 months was not manifestly excessive, so the application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed.
25 Jun 2003
The court refused leave to appeal because the applicant's age, health, family circumstances and assertion of minor role did not justify reducing the sentence and the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion— including a guilty plea reduction to 16 years—was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
25 Mar 2003
The convictions were supported by ample evidence and the Magistrate legitimately increased the starting point for sentence because of the appellant's long history of similar offences and absence of mitigation; the resulting consecutive sentences (3 months and 9 months totalling 12 months) were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, so both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.