12 Aug 2024
The magistrate erred by relying on the complainant's statement that she would not fabricate the allegation and by failing to address and evaluate material discrepancies between the complainant's evidence and the teacher's account; those discrepancies, considered on rehearing, cast doubt on credibility and rendered the conviction unsafe, mandating allowance of the appeal.
19 Oct 2022
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the overall cumulative sentence produced by consecutive elements was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; the Court did not find the starting point for Count 2 plainly wrong but recognized the appellant's principal complaint concerned totality and the application of consecutive elements.
29 Apr 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge correctly identified and applied the relevant sentencing principles and guidance, properly assessed significant aggravating factors (15‑year age gap, prolonged grooming and exploitation, recording and possession of level 4 material, psychological harm and high risk of reoffending), applied the guilty plea discount and the totality principle, and the overall cumulative sentence of 7 years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.