4 Mar 2003
Enhancement under s27(11) was incorrectly applied: conspiracy to defraud is not an organised crime under the first limb and the statistics showed the offence was not prevalent at the time of sentence, so the 25% enhancement was unjustified; accordingly the Court reduced the sentences and adjusted concurrency to achieve an overall sentence reflecting totality.
19 Jun 2001
There was no evidence that the offence was prevalent in January 1997; given appellants' prior good character, early guilty pleas, mitigation (family hardship and parents' medical conditions) and the fact they did not continue the misrepresentation, the 3-month sentences were not manifestly excessive but should be suspended for 24 months to temper justice with mercy.
25 Apr 2001
The magistrate lawfully treated the prevalence of shoplifting in the area as an aggravating factor amounting to general deterrence rather than personal deterrence; although the sentence was on the high side for a first offender it was not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeal fails.