4 Mar 2022
Leave to appeal refused because the sentencing judge's calculation of the starting point conformed to established sentencing practice and fell within an appropriate range; there was no valid basis to disturb the sentence.
11 May 2021
The judge properly applied the combined approach using the Ice tariff as the base (10 years 6 months for 63.38g), correctly uplifted the starting point by 6 months for the 17.78g ketamine component, and correctly reduced the notional starting point by one third for a timely guilty plea; there was no adequate explanation for the late application so leave to appeal out of time was refused.
10 Oct 2019
The Court concluded the appeal was arguable and granted leave because the judge’s notional sentence could be questioned on arithmetic combined-starting-point grounds, but emphasised sentencing is not purely mathematical; having considered appropriate starting points (around 5 years 9 months) and reasonable enhancements for Form 8 status and multiple drugs (together in the region of 15 months) a notional sentence near 7 years was defensible and the matter merited appellate consideration.
23 Jan 2018
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the applicant advanced no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal despite the Court finding the sentencing starting point to be unduly lenient and that the trial judge erred in failing to address material aggravating factors (trafficking multiple drug types and offending while on Form 8 recognizance); procedural requirement for arguable grounds justified refusal of leave.
24 Mar 2016
The trial judge did not err in selecting the starting point for sentence or in applying an 18% discount for the applicant's late guilty plea entered after a contested six-day voir dire; no reasonably arguable grounds for appeal against sentence were established and leave to appeal was refused.
23 Mar 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show the trial judge's notional starting point of 93 months was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the aggregate aggravating features (prior trafficking conviction, recent release from custody, offending on bail, and trafficking in two different serious drugs); therefore there were no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal.
9 Sept 2015
Leave to appeal was granted because there is a real question whether the sentencing judge erred in law or principle by allowing only a 6-month discount (less than 10%) from a 93-month starting point for the portion of drugs said to be for personal consumption contrary to the guidance in Chow Chun Sang, a question capable of reducing the sentence from 58 to 56 months.
21 Aug 2013
Leave to appeal out of time refused because the applicant failed to discharge the high onus created by the delay; the sentencing judge's starting points and use of the combined approach were within judicial discretion given the facts (imminent trafficking, quantities and presence of cocaine) and the solicitor's post‑sentence advice was reasonable, so no arguable ground of manifest excess was established.