19 Aug 2015
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because the applicant's youth, clear record, expressions of remorse, family support and the probation report made the contention that detention in a Rehabilitation Centre was excessive a reasonably arguable ground; the appeal hearing was ordered to be expedited to resolve that arguable challenge.
27 Jan 2006
Under current legislation a magistrate validly may impose detention centre orders for the offences in question and section 44(3) does not obligate mandatory consecutive minimum disqualification periods where the minima arise under the same subsection; given the appellant's record and that later offences were committed on bail the magistrate acted within his sentencing discretion and the sentences, including six years total disqualification, were appropriate.
13 Sept 1994
The Court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the sentence from three years to two years because the applicant was 17, of previous good character, had pleaded guilty and surrendered promptly (no chase) and there were no vulnerable persons on board; the trial judge should have had regard to s.109A but the mitigating factors justified a one-year reduction while affirming the need to guard against leniency that would aid syndicate recruitment.
2 Sept 1994
The appeal against conviction was dismissed because the magistrate had meticulously considered the evidence, properly warned about uncorroborated sexual testimony, applied relevant authorities, and was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence as establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt; however the appeal against sentence was allowed and the custodial order set aside given the youth of the parties and other mitigating factors.
3 Mar 1992
The Magistrate's starting point of 18–24 months for an 18 year old was incorrect; reduction was necessary for proportionality and youth. The first sentence is reduced from 12 to 6 months; the second conviction's sentence is ordered concurrent due to doubt about proof; the 3 month escape sentence is made concurrent. Appeal allowed in part and appellant released.
29 Jun 1990
The magistrate's starting point of 18 months was excessive for two young appellants convicted of attempted theft with clear records; having regard to their ages, lack of aggravating features and time already spent in custody, the appropriate disposition was a reduced custodial sentence effectively commuted to time served, warranting immediate release.
22 May 1990
The Magistracy's apparent view that 9 months is a minimum sentence for pickpocketing is wrong in principle for offenders under 21; s.109(a) requires consideration of alternatives to custody and, where custody is unavoidable for petty crime by young first offenders, the term should be short (approximately three months) to provide a short, sharp shock.
13 Mar 1990
For an offender aged 16–20 the court must avoid immediate imprisonment where other appropriate methods exist; fines must be proportionate to the offender's means and must not be set at a level that makes default imprisonment inevitable; where such errors occur the proper remedy is to substitute an appropriate sentence (here concurrent suspended imprisonment) and reduced fines.
10 Jul 1987
The sentences were not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the violent group robbery (knife use, tying and gagging, threats and injuries); the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion in imposing imprisonment rather than a Training Centre Order; Section 109A CPO is inapplicable to robbery; therefore leave to appeal and sentence reduction were refused.
9 Nov 1984
Failure of the sentencing judge to comply with the mandatory requirements of s.109A rendered the original sentences inappropriate for the young defendants; having obtained reports and considered probation advice the Court substituted two-year sentences suspended for three years with probation supervision and conditions under s.109B(3)(a), while upholding convictions.