30 Aug 2011
Balancing the extreme brutality and deliberate nature of the killing against significant but self-induced diminution of responsibility, and having found no basis for a hospital or indeterminate order but recognising the risk if illicit drug use resumes mitigable by post-release supervision, the appropriate and proportionate sentence is ten years' imprisonment.
3 Sept 2009
Given the serious nature of both offences, the aggravating circumstances (following and targeting lone victims in confined spaces), the applicant's extensive history of similar offending and high risk of reoffending, the sentencing starting points and the order that one year of Count 1 run consecutively to Count 2 were justified; the total effective sentence of five years imprisonment was appropriate and cannot be criticized.
17 Nov 1993
The court held that the original reasons for detention remained valid and, in the absence of full argument and developed alternatives, it was justified to extend the detention orders for a short fixed period (until 26 November 1993) with liberty for the Attorney General to apply further; the balance of necessity to secure witnesses outweighed the interim proposals for alternatives given the present material before the court.
17 Nov 1993
Given the unchanged facts and the reasonable prospect that the respondents will give evidence in the near future, the court concluded continuing detention under s.32(4)(b) is justified but limited the extension to a short defined period until 26 November 1993 to allow fuller argument on alternatives and ordered procedural steps for any further extension.
17 Nov 1993
Given the continuing prospect that respondents will be required to give evidence in the near future and the absence of a fully developed alternative argument, the court held the earlier reasons for detention still applied and therefore granted limited further detention from the expiry of the current orders until 26 November 1993, while allowing liberty to the Attorney General to apply for extension and requiring the filing and service of any further evidence.
27 Oct 1993
The court exercised its discretion to grant detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993) because there was a realistic prospect that the respondents could give their evidence within a reasonable time (assessed as by end of December), and the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation; detention must be limited and subject to fresh judicial consideration thereafter.
25 Oct 1990
Previous convictions do not justify increasing sentence beyond what the facts of the immediate offence warrant; pickpocketing carries a tariff of about 12–15 months (trial) and about 12 months on plea, with higher sentences only where specific aggravating factors (public transport/crowds, weapons, organised gangs) are present; plea discounts may be reduced if the plea is late or the record undermines remorse.
25 Oct 1990
Trial sentences were excessive because the magistrates treated defendants' bad records as aggravating factors; holding: prior convictions alone do not permit increasing sentence beyond what the immediate offence warrants; normal tariff for pickpocketing on plea is about 12 months (after trial 12–15 months) and increases only where aggravating factors (public transport, crowds, weapon, organised gang) are present; apply appropriate plea discounts based on timing and strength of evidence.
27 Feb 1987
Court held that the original aggregate sentence was excessive; reduced sentence for each burglary to 2 years' imprisonment, ordered those burglary sentences to run consecutively, and ordered the sentence for giving false information to run concurrently with the burglary sentences; applied standard sentencing principles including deterrence, assessment of the offender's record, and the totality principle while rejecting preventive detention as a justification for increased punishment.