9 Jul 1991
Given the quantities involved and established sentencing guidelines, the trial judge's sentence—already discounted for mitigation and made concurrent—was within permissible limits; the applicant's personal hardships did not justify further reduction and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
16 May 1977
First and third appellants' convictions were upheld because there was ample evidence of agreement to sell morphine and of possession of the drug recovered from the taxi; second appellant's conviction was quashed because the jury were not properly directed on central aspects of his defence and the conviction was therefore unsafe; fourth appellant's conviction was quashed because the presumption arising from possession of the key had been rebutted sufficiently and conviction was unsafe; appellate reduction of first and third sentences from 12 to 10 years was appropriate given sentence severity.
24 Feb 1976
Although the magistrate accepted the prosecution account and admitted the written confession after a voir dire, the appellate court harboured a real doubt about the authenticity/voluntariness of the written portion and concluded that, in all the circumstances, the conviction was not safe and must be set aside.
7 Aug 1975
Despite prior convictions, the appellate court may substitute a suspended sentence where the offender's personal circumstances and clear prospects of rehabilitation (including relocation abroad) justify leniency; the appeal was allowed and an 18‑month sentence was suspended for three years as a last chance with warning of severe punishment for reoffending.
25 Jul 1974
The court held it was wrong to impose a heavier sentence for the lesser offence of going equipped than for the actual attempt to steal and reduced the sentence on the going-equipped charge from six months to three months while leaving the other sentences intact.
27 Nov 1972
Given the appellant's multiple previous convictions for unlawful possession of drugs and his failure to take advantage of probation, training and treatment options, the sentence of twelve months' imprisonment was not excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
27 Nov 1972
Given the appellant's criminal record, the gap since his last drug conviction in 1966, and the uncertainty whether the drugs were for personal use or trafficking, the court found the six months' imprisonment was a proper sentence and there was no ground to interfere with the magistrate's decision.
23 Dec 1971
The magistrate's adverse credibility finding on the planting allegation was accepted and, given the appellant's substantial prior convictions including multiple drug offences, the six month custodial sentence was within proper sentencing discretion; appeal dismissed.
14 Jul 1971
Given the substantial adverse probation report, the appellant's lack of remorse and his triad association, the appellate court will not interfere with the magistrate's decision to impose detention in a Training Centre; probation was not appropriate in the circumstances.
30 Jun 1971
The appeal was dismissed because, in light of the appellant's prior drug convictions, history of treatment, and his attempt to seek re-admission for treatment, the learned Magistrate reasonably concluded that a 9-month custodial sentence was appropriate to secure further treatment and rehabilitation.