10 Sept 2024
The leave application is dismissed because the applicant was out of time to challenge the original refusal, the reconsideration was properly refused as both belated and lacking fresh grounds, and the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds or verify facts sufficient to justify leave.
3 Aug 2012
Applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal and the conviction rested on factual findings; the four-year sentence was in line with precedent; personal compassionate grounds did not justify bail — therefore bail pending appeal was refused.
16 Jul 2004
The Director had expressly considered whether the applicant constituted an exception to the dependency policy and there was no evidence he failed to take into account material matters; accordingly his refusal was not irrational and the court will not overturn the exercise of his discretion.
4 Jun 2002
Because the applicant made a fully informed and deliberate decision to abandon her application in 1999, the Court will not treat that abandonment as a nullity and will not grant leave to appeal out of time; family or compassionate circumstances cited are matters for the Executive, not grounds to reopen the abandonment.
3 Jan 2002
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the sentences were excessive; compassionate grounds were insufficient, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
29 Sept 2000
Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because there is no arguable case: the applicant received the practical extension sought, no evidence was put forward showing the Director acted irrationally, perversely or with bias, and compassionate/family unity grounds do not suffice to found judicial review absent legal error.
22 Oct 1999
The applicant was treated as having landed unlawfully because his entry was secured by misrepresentation; the Director lawfully exercised power under s.19 to make the removal order; delay did not create a legitimate expectation to remain; there was no general duty to give further reasons or disclose evaluative material in respect of an unlawful entrant absent a specific right or legitimate expectation; the Director considered compassionate factors and his adverse inferences about family ties and mainland visits were rational, so the challenged decisions were lawful and not irrational.
12 Aug 1997
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant offered only bald, unsupported assertions and family circumstances, which do not outweigh the sentencing judge's application of the appropriate starting point and a substantial discount in light of a long record of burglaries; the two-year sentence was within the proper range and therefore upheld.
19 Sept 1996
Leave to appeal out of time granted and appeal allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence from 12 months to 9 months because the appellant's pregnancy constituted sufficient compassionate ground to justify reduction so she could return to China before the birth, taking into account usual remission for good conduct.
6 Aug 1996
The appeal was dismissed because the sentence of 12 months imprisonment, ordered to run consecutively to the existing 8 months, was appropriate in view of the facts, the appellant's record, and the aggravating fact that the offence was committed while on bail; disparity with sentences imposed on co-defendants by other magistrates did not render the appellant's sentence inappropriate.