14 Mar 2002
The appeal was dismissed because there were no exceptional circumstances to justify suspension of the sentences and the four month concurrent sentences were not manifestly excessive in light of established authorities and sentencing tariff.
19 Jun 1996
The judge was entitled to impose concurrent terms of 18 months' imprisonment; denial of knowledge of the victim's precise age does not negate guilt though it is relevant to sentence; sentencing judges must state a specific starting point so discounts for mitigation are apparent.
26 Apr 1996
The Court held that the sentencing judge had taken into account the relevant matters including the restructuring agreement and the nature of the deception; although three years' imprisonment was somewhat on the high side it remained within the acceptable range, therefore the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
23 Jan 1991
On the facts admitted by the applicant, the sentencing judge was entitled to treat the robbery as a seriously violent enterprise and to take the injuries inflicted during the robbery into account in sentencing the applicant as an active participant, even though the applicant did not wield a weapon and had been acquitted on a separate wounding count where no evidence was offered against him.
19 Sept 1989
The 18-month sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the established tariff authorities and the respondent's concession; the appropriate sentence is 12 months' imprisonment, so the appeal is allowed to that extent and the original sentence is quashed and substituted.
14 Mar 1986
The Court found that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient consideration to the clear records and pleas of guilty of the first two appellants and that six years was manifestly excessive in their circumstances; accordingly their sentences were reduced from six to four years. The conviction of the third applicant was upheld because the judge's directions and handling of the cautioned statement were not unfair, but in equity the Court reduced his sentence from five to four years to maintain parity with co-accused.
14 Sept 1984
The Court held the ten-year sentence was excessive because the trial judge over-weighted aggravating factors — the lives of staff were not effectively endangered given the bank's layout and kerosene's lower combustibility, and the offence showed limited planning — and insufficient credit was given for the guilty plea; the appropriate sentence is eight years' imprisonment.