24 Nov 2021
The Magistrate did not err in law or principle: the offences were distinct, the correct starting point was 22 months and 2 weeks, and making two weeks concurrent under the totality principle was appropriate; the sentence was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
5 Jun 2020
After reviewing transcripts including PW1's evidence in a subsequent trial, the court found PW1's reliability doubtful due to material and substantive inconsistencies; the convictions based principally on his uncorroborated evidence were therefore unsafe and were quashed with sentences set aside.
22 Jul 2015
Despite an unexplained two-year delay, the court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal because there existed a plainly arguable ground — that the applicant’s voluntary confession, said to have occurred after he returned specifically to surrender, might justify a greater discount and affect whether the immigration sentence should run consecutively; leave was given so the Court of Appeal can determine these contested facts and the proper exercise of discretion.
27 Mar 2015
The Court held the District Judge did not err: given the large-scale, planned joint enterprise, the unchallenged expert evidence of irreparable ecological harm and the unusually large quantity and value of Aquilaria sinensis seized, a 4-year starting point reduced for plea and enhanced by 25% under s27(2)(d) OSCO was justified; consecutive sentencing for the immigration offence was legally appropriate and, after applying the totality principle, the aggregate sentence of 55 months was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
9 Jan 2014
Where offences overlap because the breach of a deportation order (s43) inherently includes unlawful presence (s38), the lesser offence should normally be ordered to run concurrently; the judge erred in ordering part of the s43 sentence consecutive to the s38 sentence, and the appropriate approach required revisiting the s43 sentence starting point and ordering concurrency such that the adjusted aggregate sentence is lawful and proportionate.
22 Aug 2012
The sentences imposed by the magistrate were within the range established by appellate authority and not manifestly excessive; the 12-month sentence for possession of a forged identity card running concurrently with the 15-month sentence for unlawful remaining was appropriate; the appellant's claimed ignorance of possible sentence severity did not justify reduction.
8 Oct 2010
The appeal is allowed because the learned Magistrate failed to give adequate weight to the appellant's immediate surrender on arrival and to strong humanitarian mitigation; therefore the 14-month sentence was set aside and the appellant ordered released and returned to Pakistan as he had already served slightly over five months.
24 Feb 2010
The appeal was dismissed because the 14 months sentence fell within the established sentencing range (reduced from the 15‑month guideline to account for time served), there were no compelling humanitarian grounds to reduce it further, the appellant's conduct suggested a tactical abuse of the asylum process, and the Magistrate correctly applied immigration prosecution policy.
2 Feb 2010
The 15-month sentence conforms to the established guideline in The Queen v So Man King and the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficiently strong humanitarian or other material reasons to justify reduction or suspension; therefore the sentence must stand.
7 May 2009
Given the appellant's extensive history of identical offences, including a prior three‑year sentence for the same conduct, the Court held that a total sentence of 30 months was not excessive and dismissed the appeal against sentence.