19 Jun 1996
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge’s acceptance of PW6 and PW4 and rejection of the applicant’s account was open on the evidence, the ledger entries would not have altered those factual conclusions, and the sentences were not manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
30 May 1996
Given the applicant's primary responsibility for preparing cheques and keeping counterfoils, the missing counterfoils and vouchers, his failure to advance a plausible alternative (no trial suggestion that another altered the cheques), and direct evidence of alterations and withdrawals, the trial judge was entitled to find guilt; the three-year concurrent sentence was within the proper range because of the position of trust and the substantial aggregate loss (circa $200,000).
31 Oct 1990
The judge did not err in distinguishing the roles of the two defendants and in the sentences imposed; having regard to the extent of misappropriation by the 1st defendant and the comparative involvement of the 2nd, the sentences (4 years for D1 and 2 years for D2) were not manifestly excessive and the applications for leave to appeal are refused.