27 Aug 2019
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate’s overall sentence of 17 months was not manifestly excessive; the court found the magistrate had regard to mitigation, the appellant played a proactive and important operational role which limited mitigation, and family circumstances did not justify a reduction sufficient to disturb the sentence.
18 Aug 2010
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate correctly balanced aggravating factors (persistent and repeated offending, quantity and value of dutiable goods, breach of a suspended sentence and prior convictions) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, advanced age and health), lawfully activated the suspended sentence and applied totality; the overall sentence was not excessive.
11 Dec 2009
The conviction was quashed because the prosecution case was weakened by inconsistencies and deficiencies (notably PW2's contradictory evidence and the unsafe reliance on an alleged admission), and because the magistrate's method of assessment—including apparent premature acceptance of PW1 and unclear reliance on PW2—rendered the conviction unsafe.