30 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because, even accepting the applicability of the revised guidelines and reassessing role and culpability, any reduction in sentence would be insubstantial (around one month) and therefore not a ground for appellate interference; the offence remained extremely serious and refusal of out‑of‑time leave was appropriate.
11 Mar 2026
The judge’s chosen starting points and 3‑month enhancements for recidivism and reoffending shortly after release were justified given the applicant’s persistent similar offences and rapid reoffending; the totality principle was properly applied in fixing consecutive elements and the overall term of 44 months was not manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
11 Mar 2026
The Court held there was no error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of sentencing law: the asserted mediating conduct by D1 did not amount to a mitigating feature sufficient to reduce culpability in the context of a premeditated, weapon‑assisted, large‑scale riot; the 7‑year baseline for the riot was an appropriate starting point for these offenders; plea discounts and concurrency orders were properly applied; accordingly permission to appeal against sentence was refused and the original sentences were upheld.
4 Feb 2026
Having reheard the case on the evidence, the High Court concluded the magistrate's starting point of 7.5 weeks custody was appropriate for 0.58g of cocaine and that the magistrate acted leniently by granting a one-third plea discount (more than the usual one-fifth for a plea on the first day). The sentence of 5 weeks immediate custody was therefore not manifestly excessive and was upheld.
20 Jan 2026
Given the objective evidence of planning, disguise, coordination with an accomplice, the high value of goods stolen and the use of an imitation firearm that created real risk, a 14‑year starting point was justified and, after a 25% late plea discount, the resulting sentence of 10 years 6 months was not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal against sentence was therefore refused.
12 Jan 2026
The sentence was within the reasonable range for a repeat shoplifter; the trial judge permissibly adopted a 10‑month starting point and uplifted it by two months for the appellant's extensive theft antecedents and rapid reoffending, then applied a one‑third guilty plea discount to reach 8 months; no error or manifest excess was shown on rehearing, so the appeal is dismissed.
16 Dec 2025
The applicant's challenge failed because his overall sentence was not manifestly excessive: his essential facilitation role, the premeditated nature of the burglaries, use of a getaway car with false plates, his significant prior record and commission shortly after release justified elevated starting points and consecutive sentencing for the separate failure to surrender offence; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
17 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge was entitled to enhance the starting point for the applicant's extensive and serious criminal record and to characterise the applicant's role and culpability as he did; there were no reasonably arguable grounds that the enhancement or lack of warning rendered the sentence disproportionate or erroneous.
21 Aug 2025
Leave to appeal was granted because the appeal raises an arguable and significant question whether the sentencing judge erred by treating admitted facts of human trafficking that went beyond the particulars of the conspiracy to defraud as aggravating material determining the starting point of 7 years; the issue requires full appellate determination on whether such facts may be treated as part of the crime for sentencing and whether the conspiracy charge properly reflected the criminality alleged.
6 Aug 2025
Leave to appeal against sentence is granted because the judge's approach—adopting a 23‑year starting point for 6.8 kg Ketamine, enhancing by 1 year for offending while on bail to 24 years and then applying a full one‑third plea discount—fell within arguable bounds of principled sentencing; the Court of Appeal should hear full argument, including whether Ketamine guidelines require revision.