11 Mar 2026
The judge’s chosen starting points and 3‑month enhancements for recidivism and reoffending shortly after release were justified given the applicant’s persistent similar offences and rapid reoffending; the totality principle was properly applied in fixing consecutive elements and the overall term of 44 months was not manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
11 Mar 2026
Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge adopted appropriate starting points, reasonably enhanced sentences for the applicant's persistent recidivism and reoffending shortly after release, properly applied plea discounts and the totality principle, and the resultant aggregate sentence of 44 months was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
20 Nov 2025
The Court held the starting point of 7 years 4 months for the 16.08g of Ice was correct but the judge's 1 year 8 months enhancement for prior convictions was excessive; a 12-month enhancement was proportionate, producing a notional 8 years 4 months start and, after a one-third guilty plea reduction, a substituted sentence of 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
7 Nov 2025
Magistrate erred in treating the gross weight of mixed crystalline material as the weight of pure methamphetamine and failed to apply the Waqas principle. Considering the actual circumstances and precedents, a 7-month starting point was appropriate, uplifted by 2 months for recidivism and reduced by one-third for early plea, resulting in a 6-month custodial sentence.
31 Oct 2025
The judge lawfully selected the base drug, applied applicable guideline bands, permissibly enhanced the notional starting point for the presence of multiple drugs and for the applicant's recent recidivism, applied the one third guilty plea reduction and did not err in declining further mitigation; therefore the leave application to appeal the sentence is refused.
24 Jul 2025
The sentencing decisions were not manifestly excessive: the judge properly applied a guilty plea discount, considered aggravating factors including recidivism and reoffending on bail, applied the totality principle by ordering partial concurrency and arrived at a justified aggregate sentence; appeal dismissed.
21 May 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing magistrate did not err in principle or impose a sentence that was manifestly excessive; given the appellant's repeated speeding offences, the short interval after completing a driving improvement course and the seriousness of exceeding the limit by 47 km/h, a two-year driving disqualification was proportionate and necessary for deterrence.
15 Apr 2025
The Court refused leave to appeal because the sentencing judge properly applied sentencing principles including the totality principle; the aggregate four‑year sentence was not manifestly excessive given significant aggravating factors (extensive prior convictions, professional offending profile, use of tools and offending on bail), and appellate intervention was not justified.
18 Mar 2025
Given the defendant's extensive and recent history of similar burglary convictions the appropriate starting point was set at 33 months; applying the one‑third reduction for early guilty plea produced an effective custodial sentence of 22 months.
20 Feb 2025
The judge determined base sentences by applying quantity-based sentencing bands and conversion tests across multiple drugs, adopted a combined approach using the most serious drug as the base, adjusted for the defendant's role and recidivism, refused mitigation for unproven personal-use claims, applied totality to avoid excessive cumulation, and reduced the aggregate sentence by one-third for the guilty plea, resulting in an immediate 32-month imprisonment.