2 Feb 2001
Entrapment was not expressly raised at the sentencing on 9 October 2000 and the magistrate was therefore entitled to ignore it; the magistrate properly considered alternatives to custody but had set too high a starting point so the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to six weeks imprisonment.
18 Oct 1988
Given the appellant's age, lack of prior convictions, immediate admission and assistance in recovering the property, his guilty plea, and the probation officer's view that probation supervision was unnecessary, a prison sentence (even suspended) was inappropriate; the appropriate disposal was to quash the sentence and order a conditional discharge on recognizance of $250 for 18 months.
22 Mar 1982
Conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking was unsafe because the record indicated the magistrate knew of the appellant's previous convictions and had read a D.A.T.C. report before making any adjudication; accordingly the conviction was set aside and substituted with a lesser offence under s.8(1)(a), and sentence was rethought to a probation order with treatment conditions given the appellant's suitability for treatment and family circumstances.
6 Jun 1977
The magistrate erred in imposing consecutive sentences because charges A and B arose from a single transaction and the asserted triad connection was not supported by the facts or the probation report; therefore the proper disposition is to order the three sentences to run concurrently.