23 Dec 2022
The trial judge did not err: the 15‑month sentences on counts 1 and 2 represented a one‑third reduction from a 22.5‑month starting point for guilty pleas; the individual and aggregate sentences (total 20 months and 5 days) were not manifestly excessive; the appellant's new allegations were unsupported and prosecutorial delay was not prejudicial, so the appeal is dismissed.
20 Jan 2017
The Court allowed the Secretary for Justice’s review of sentence, holding the original sentence of 3 years was unduly lenient because the judge understated culpability by failing to reflect the aggravating factors (use of thinner as a stupefying agent, element of planning/premeditation and sustained violence). The appropriate starting point was 10 years, a one-third discount for plea yields 6 years 8 months, and a further 6-month reduction was justified because the respondent had already been discharged and the increase was substantial; substituted sentence 6 years 2 months imprisonment.