26 Apr 2013
Given the appellant's extensive antecedents (67 convictions, at least 26 for dishonesty) and the nature of the offences, the total sentence of nine months was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
24 Sept 1999
Because the applicant, while legally represented, unequivocally pleaded guilty and the admissions made in the video interview supported the summary of facts and the charges, there was no basis to allow withdrawal of the plea or grant leave to appeal out of time; the application is dismissed.
4 Nov 1981
A court must exercise caution before taking into consideration charges that are formally before it for plea or trial; it should enquire into and record the reasons for not hearing those charges, but where the record and admissions support the sentence the appellate court will not interfere with a sentence that lies within the sentencing judge's discretion.
22 Sept 1978
Because the appellant’s mitigation contained a possible satisfactory account, the original plea was equivocal and the trial court failed to ask and record whether a satisfactory account could be given; therefore the conviction and sentence were set aside and the case remitted for the plea to be retaken.
2 Jun 1978
When offences are taken into consideration no separate sentence should be imposed for them; the correct course is to reflect those offences by stiffening one of the sentences imposed for a substantive charge, usually the most serious, and concurrent sentences imposed for offences merely taken into consideration are unlawful and must be set aside.
5 Jun 1972
Sentences imposed by the magistrate for offences that were only taken into consideration and to which the appellants had not pleaded were unlawful and are to be quashed; the valid sentence for the offence to which the appellant pleaded guilty is to stand and must be amended to state that the other offences were taken into consideration.
13 Oct 1969
The appellant's subsequent admission of facts in court established a guilty plea to robbery despite earlier ambiguity, but it was improper for Crown counsel to refer to use of a knife when the plea excluded aggravation; having regard to that improper reference and the circumstances, the three year sentence was excessive and was reduced to two years' imprisonment commencing from the date of conviction.