3 Jun 2025
Leave to appeal was granted limitedly: the court found grounds challenging overall excessiveness (ground 2) and the 8‑month bail enhancement (ground 3) were reasonably arguable and merited appeal; grounds asserting wholly concurrent sentences and discounts for consumption or personal mitigation (grounds 1,4,5) were not reasonably arguable and were refused.
21 Mar 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the minor arithmetic variance in the starting point was insignificant in context and the application of heroin sentencing guidelines to cocaine is settled, justified by experience of harm; enhancement for international trafficking is lawful and proper; the applicant's personal mitigation did not establish exceptional circumstances to reduce sentence, therefore leave to appeal and the appeal were refused.
23 Aug 2002
The magistrate adopted an appropriate starting point and lawful reductions for plea and attempt, considered totality and retained discretion not to reduce further; the nine month sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Aug 1996
The Judge applied correct sentencing principles: a four-year starting point for robbery was appropriate, a one-third reduction for the guilty plea was properly applied, and the applicant's prior convictions and failure to rehabilitate justified the imposed sentence; his personal circumstances, intoxication and restitution did not justify further reduction, therefore the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
31 May 1996
The 2 year sentence for a serious lift robbery causing injury was appropriate and merciful; the applicant's personal circumstances and expressed desire for reform did not justify reducing that sentence.