26 Jan 2007
The sentence was not manifestly excessive because the applicant intentionally used a chopper in a sustained attack (about ten blows) to vital areas causing serious injuries; given the gravity a seven‑year starting point reduced one‑third for guilty plea to four years eight months was appropriate and proportionate.
30 Jun 2005
The court upheld the trial judge's findings rejecting the applicant's account at the Newton hearing, concluded the Newton hearing was properly conducted, that the reduced guilty plea discount and chosen starting points were appropriate given the facts and the applicant's record, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence as the sentences were not excessive.
20 Jan 1995
The Court held the sentencing judge's starting point of 15 years was appropriate for an acid attack intended to disfigure or cause grievous bodily harm, that the judge properly discounted to 13 years for the applicant's limited mitigation (good character, clear record), and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant further reduction; the appeal was dismissed.
18 Feb 1992
For a premeditated, vicious group knife attack on an unarmed individual causing massive injuries the correct starting point is nine years' imprisonment; after giving full weight to mitigation including surrender and immediate admission of guilt the appropriate sentence is reduced to five and a half years, and the original three year sentence was therefore varied to five and a half years.
4 Aug 1988
The appellate court refused the application because the trial judge made a careful assessment of identification and credibility, reasonably accepted PW2's identification in light of the chaotic circumstances and rejected the applicant's uncorroborated alibi; there was no basis for appellate interference with those factual findings.
21 Jul 1988
The Court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing a stay because the Crown provided a reasonable explanation for the delay (protecting other undercover agents and an ongoing operation), the delay did not deprive the applicants of a fair trial, and the trial judge properly evaluated and accepted the undercover agents' evidence and other supporting material; accordingly the convictions were safe and leave to appeal was refused.
17 Dec 1986
The Court held the sentences were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: mitigating factors were considered and reduced the terms, but the vicious knife attack during the robbery was an aggravating feature that made custodial sentences appropriate under existing precedent; leave to appeal was refused.
31 Jan 1978
Because the magistrate's sentence was founded on incorrect facts which, when corrected, revealed substantial mitigation (good character, provocation, fatigue and employment consequences), a custodial sentence was inappropriate; the appropriate disposal was discharge on recognizance with no conviction recorded.