28 Apr 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge adopted a proper starting point and lawfully imposed and quantified aggravating enhancements based on the admitted facts (including joint action) and the applicant advanced no arguable ground showing the sentence was excessive or unlawful.
13 Dec 2002
The magistrate's adoption of a six-month starting point represented an excessive enhancement (approximately 100%) over the proportionate starting point of three months for this low-value shop theft; given the appellant's persistent record a moderate enhancement of about 25% to 15 weeks, reduced to 10 weeks for the guilty plea, was appropriate. Accordingly the court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of 10 weeks' imprisonment for the 4 months originally imposed.
21 Jun 2001
The magistrate was entitled to adopt an increased starting point up to the magistracy maximum because the appellant was a persistent offender whose prior sentences had not deterred him; however the guilty plea discount should be the full one-third in the circumstances because the delay in plea was not the appellant's fault, and the sentence was varied from 18 months to 16 months imprisonment.
18 Apr 2001
Because the applicant had an extensive record of 47 prior convictions including 26 burglaries and six of his last seven convictions were for burglary, the district judge did not err in adopting a higher starting point of four years for domestic burglary; after the one‑third reduction for an early guilty plea the sentence of two years and eight months was appropriate and the Court refused leave to appeal.
18 Dec 1991
The magistrate's aggregate sentence of 35 months offended the totality principle; the appellate court must assess the offender's conduct as a whole and impose a reduced aggregate term. The appeal is allowed and the sentence is reduced to a total of two and a half years constituted by specified concurrent and consecutive components.