25 Aug 2016
The magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion after considering undisputed probation and DATC reports, the appellant's long history of dependence, lack of insight and failure to engage with voluntary treatment; a DATC order was appropriate, not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and the appeal is dismissed.
8 Dec 2009
The magistrate was entitled to impose a suspended custodial sentence because probation was unsuitable and would be ineffectual given the appellant’s likely removal; the 4‑month suspended sentence fell within permissible sentencing discretion for possession of a small quantity of hard drug and was not manifestly excessive, and the court will not alter a proper sentence merely to bring it within the Rehabilitation of Offenders scheme.
5 Mar 2003
Given the appellant's factual background, prior convictions and unsuccessful DATC interventions, the Magistrate properly adopted a 9 month starting point in line with authority and lawfully reduced it by one third for an early plea to arrive at a six month sentence; the sentence is appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.
10 Dec 2002
The magistrate did not err in principle in accepting the Young Offender Assessment Panel's recommendation and imposing a detention centre order given the appellant's violent propensity, prior similar threat, significant property damage and violent conduct while on remand; the detention order was not manifestly excessive and was in the appellant's best interests.
19 Oct 1999
The Court allowed the appeal and substituted a training centre order with a community service order of 180 hours within one year because, on the facts, the appellant's youth, first offender status, guilty plea, remorse and consent to enforceable supervisory conditions justified a non-custodial rehabilitative sentence despite the probation report; the availability of appropriate conditions (fixed abode/contact, employment, curfew, drug testing) made supervision feasible and lawful.
15 Mar 1994
Given the offence's seriousness and facts, a three and a half year starting point reduced to two and a half years for the guilty plea was within appropriate sentencing range and not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal was refused.
6 Sept 1988
Detention centre order was disproportionate for a first offender with good background and employment; having regard to value of property, time already served (two months) and overall circumstances, non‑custodial supervision (12 months probation) was the appropriate sentence while the conviction was upheld.
13 Jul 1988
Given the appellant's age and first‑offender status, the trivial value of the damaged goods, and his demonstrable remorse and progress while detained, continued detention served no further purpose; the appeal was allowed and the Detention Centre order quashed.
14 Mar 1977
The magistrate's sentence was wrong in principle because the damage was trivial and resulted from unusual circumstances without premeditation or threats; prior convictions cannot override the need to sentence proportionately, therefore the detention sentence was quashed and substituted to permit the appellant's immediate release.
25 Apr 1973
The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing court properly relied on authoritative reports showing probation was unsuitable and that the 16‑year‑old offender required supervised detention which his family could not provide, making detention in a Training Centre appropriate.