6 Mar 1996
The judge did not err: he considered mitigation and the totality of sentences; because the applicant committed the offences while on bail for matters resulting in a 13‑month sentence it was proper to order the new sentences consecutive, and the aggregate sentence of six years was lawful and not excessive.
2 Nov 1995
The judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence and rejection of the applicant's explanation was open on the evidence; there was no shown misdirection or unfairness warranting interference, so leave to appeal against conviction was properly refused.
23 Mar 1973
The court held that multiple short consecutive sentences for a series of similar deceptive transactions were excessive; an overall sentence should be fixed. Applying that principle, the first appellant's aggregate sentence was excessive and was reduced to an overall 12 months; the second appellant's non-probation sentences were made concurrent with a four-month term while a six-month sentence for breach of probation remained consecutive, producing a net ten-month term.