2 Oct 2024
The judge lawfully adopted a notional starting point for the combined offences (109 months), properly enhanced it for the applicant's role and prior record and applied a one‑third reduction for the guilty plea to reach an effective term of 80 months (6 years 8 months); the sentence was not wrong in principle and leave to appeal was refused.
28 Feb 2023
A modest enhancement to the starting point for multiple drug traffickings is within the sentencing judge's discretion where justified by the offender's circumstances and where the Court of Appeal's combined approach tests are used as flexible cross-checks rather than mandatory calculations.
15 Jan 2019
The Court held that the starting point of 8 years was not manifestly excessive and that the effective discount of about 15.6% was within the range open to the sentencing judge in light of the applicant's decision to plead not guilty to homicide at trial and his antecedents; accordingly leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
12 Oct 2018
The Court held that the trial judge erred by applying 'breach of trust' where the appellant's access to the student hall was general and he held no position of authority or unique entrusted access; the location factor (student hall) warranted less weight than a private home or school for minors; the judge's starting points were therefore too high and produced a manifestly excessive overall sentence; applying proper starting points and plea discounts the appropriate overall sentence is 18 months' imprisonment with specified concurrency/consecutivity orders.
27 May 2014
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the sentencing judge did not err in law or principle: the starting point of four years was within the appropriate range for the offense and the reduction for plea and mitigation produced a justified 32 month sentence; disparity with Yu's sentence for an unconnected offence is not a ground for interference.
11 Dec 2013
The judge correctly identified and weighed multiple aggravating factors (multiple offenders, violence, planning, victim vulnerability) which justified a five‑year starting point for this unarmed robbery and the ordering of the sentence to run consecutively to an unrelated later sentence was not open to criticism; therefore leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
6 Dec 2013
The Court held that the offence was opportunistic and unsophisticated and that a 12‑month starting point was appropriate; applying the judge's justified enhancements of +9 months and +3 months produced a 24‑month starting point, and after allowing the one‑third plea discount the appropriate sentence was 16 months' imprisonment, so the appeal was allowed and the 18‑month sentence reduced to 16 months.
9 Aug 2013
The Court held that the judge correctly applied the conventional 3‑year starting point for domestic burglary, permissibly enhanced it by 3 months because of the applicant's serious and persistent record, and properly applied a one‑third plea discount, producing a justified sentence of 26 months; leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
2 Aug 2011
The conspiracy was an open-ended distribution network under the applicant's control, making his culpability greater than for a single-instance trafficking based solely on the seized quantity; the sentencing judge's higher starting point for the ringleader was within legitimate discretion and not excessive, so leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
26 Feb 2009
The sentencing judge was entitled to adopt the individual approach, identifying starting points of three years for the cocaine and two years for the ketamine, and the combined starting point of four years (after adjustment) was not manifestly excessive; the final sentence of three years imprisonment after reduction for guilty plea was proper, so leave to appeal was dismissed.