21 Dec 1978
Detention was quashed and substituted by an eighteen‑month probation order because the appellant was a 17‑year‑old first offender in steady employment, remorseful, supported by his family, and the probation officer described the case as borderline for probation; the court concluded it was justified to take the risk of probation rather than detention.
29 Jun 1971
The court dismissed the appeal because it found the appellant's allegations of coercion not credible, accepted that the plea/confession was voluntary, and held the three months' sentence to be appropriate in light of the appellant's repeated offending and an unfavourable probation report, so there was no basis to disturb the magistrate's exercise of discretion.
13 Dec 1968
The sentences were within the proper discretionary range and the appellant’s advanced age and addiction did not outweigh his extensive record and recent similar convictions; therefore the appellate court must dismiss the appeal and uphold concurrent sentences of 2 months for the first two offences and a consecutive 4 months for the third.
10 Jun 1968
Although the judge had grave doubts about the legality of trying separately charged offenders together and acknowledged the principle that want of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent, he declined to quash the convictions because the only practical remedy would be a retrial; having regard to practice and the appellants' consent he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions.
3 Jan 1968
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's credibility findings and interpretation of the notes were reasonable and within jurisdiction; the joint charging did not render the trial a nullity and there was no basis to overturn the conviction.