13 Jun 1997
The Court upheld the sentences because the offences were of considerable gravity—targeting judicial and public officers and amounting to a serious intention to intimidate—and the trial judges had not erred in principle or imposed sentences manifestly excessive; mitigation did not justify reduction.
13 Jun 1997
The Court held that the offences were very serious attacks on the administration of justice and orderly government, the trial judges did not fail to take into account relevant mitigating factors, and the sentences imposed were appropriate and not excessive; the appellant's application was therefore refused.
13 Jun 1997
The Court held that given the calculated, deliberate nature of the offences targeting the administration of justice and high-ranking officials, the sentences were proportionate; no error in principle or manifest excess was shown and the application to vary the sentences was refused.