16 Aug 1996
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate error in the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion or that the total concurrent sentence of three years was manifestly excessive; the judge had properly assessed the seriousness of the offences and imposed an appropriate sentence.
21 Jun 1995
Although the mitigation documents were of doubtful authenticity, if genuine they constituted special humanitarian circumstances; having regard to the nearly eight months already served, the court reduced the sentence on count 1 from 15 months to 12 months for both appellants while leaving the concurrent 3‑month sentence on count 2 unchanged.
12 Mar 1992
The court held that although the applicant's guilty plea, cooperation and personal circumstances merited mitigation, the offences were sufficiently serious and the sentences imposed (2.5 years on each of seven charges to run concurrently) were within accepted guidelines; therefore no further reduction was warranted and leave to appeal was refused.
8 Feb 1991
For immigration-related offences the 15 month tariff applies to guilty pleas; after conviction following trial a magistrate may lawfully impose a sentence in excess of 15 months, but magistrates must take into account and credit periods spent in custody prior to sentence; accordingly the appellant's sentence is reduced by the days in custody between arrest and sentencing (inclusive).