21 Oct 2016
The application to certify a point of law out of time was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of law of great and general importance in the prior decision and provided no acceptable explanation for the 5 years 8 months delay; the Court reaffirmed that the original 22 year starting point was appropriate and the discount given was generous.
7 Jul 2015
Appeal allowed: although theft was organised, the value was not high and the appellant was a first offender; the 9-month starting point adopted by the magistrate was excessive in the circumstances and, after allowing for plea and time served, immediate release was appropriate.
28 Nov 2008
The learned Magistrate's assessment that PW1 was credible and that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant struck PW1 and that both parties took part in a fight was unimpeachable on appeal; self-defence did not arise on the evidence; given the facts and appellant's prior violent convictions the sentence of 18 weeks imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and was properly imposed.
16 Mar 1995
Conviction upheld because evidence (eyewitness testimony and a voluntary confession) was ample; sentence affirmed because the trial judge correctly adopted a four-year starting point reduced for time in treatment, the applicant showed no remorse, and disparity with co-accused was explained by differing circumstances and concurrent serving of sentences; prior attendance at a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre did not mandate Training Centre disposal or render the sentence inappropriate.
21 Jul 1993
The Court refused leave to appeal and held the trial judge did not err: the 7-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's central organising role in a prolonged, well-planned kidnapping for ransom; time spent in foreign custody resisting extradition is relevant but not necessarily fully creditable; differences in co-conspirators' sentences were justifiable by differing roles and culpability.
13 Feb 1992
Although the 4-year sentence was within the correct legal range on the authorities, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 2 years because the applicant was sentenced by a different judge who had not been informed of similar sentences imposed on co-defendants by Judge Moylan; this procedural disparity made intervention necessary to achieve justice.
5 Mar 1981
The Court held the 21 months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive because the appellant, occupying a position of trust, carried out systematic theft of high value goods; the trial judge properly considered mitigation including guilty plea, recovery of property and personal circumstances; comparative authority did not compel a lesser sentence and the appeal was therefore dismissed.