14 Jun 2013
Because the magistrate exhibited ambivalence and had not sufficiently applied his mind in calling an unusually wide range of suitability reports, the High Court was justified in replacing the bulk of the magistrate's order and granting bail while retaining calls for probation and community service reports.
20 Dec 2011
The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate's $1,000 fine for theft was within the proper exercise of sentencing discretion, the community service option was not recommended by the report, and there was no proper basis to interfere with the sentence.
27 Nov 2007
Community service orders were inappropriate for the gravity of letters of credit fraud; the appropriate starting point was two years' imprisonment but, because of exceptional mitigating circumstances (prosecution concessions regarding the victim, defendants' records and desperation), the court substituted concurrent sentences of 18 months' imprisonment on each of the three charges, suspended for two years.
15 Jan 2003
The appeal is dismissed because the nine-month driving disqualification was not excessive in all the circumstances, fell well below guideline levels, and did not warrant appellate interference.
7 Aug 2001
The Court held the sentence of detention in a training centre was not excessive and was appropriate in light of the nature and number of offences and the progress report indicating vulnerability, addiction and lack of effective family support; accordingly the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the training centre order affirmed.
6 Nov 1997
The appeal was allowed because the appellant's lesser quantity and lesser degree of obscenity, absence of evidence that he jointly possessed the entire stock, his prior short detention already served and favourable probation/community service reports made a non-custodial disposition appropriate; the detention order was set aside and substituted with a 200-hour community service order.
13 Jul 1988
Given the appellant's age and first‑offender status, the trivial value of the damaged goods, and his demonstrable remorse and progress while detained, continued detention served no further purpose; the appeal was allowed and the Detention Centre order quashed.