29 Apr 2016
The Court held that, in the special circumstances of this case, no further reduction in sentence for assistance was warranted; the application for reduction was refused, costs were awarded to the respondent, and the papers were to be provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
11 Dec 2014
The Court accepted the admitted fresh evidence that the applicant provided information which led to the arrest, prosecution and sentencing in Thailand of another person; applying established appellate practice the Court held the applicant was entitled to an additional discount so that the overall discount from the 24-year starting point was about 40%, and accordingly quashed the 16-year sentence and substituted a term of 14 years and 4 months imprisonment.
8 Dec 2014
Although the Court considered it would have been preferable to apply a half reduction to both sentences, it was unnecessary to find the sentencing judge made a principled error because the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
2 Jul 2014
Leave to appeal out of time granted; applicant entitled to the usual 50% reduction (inclusive of the one‑third reduction for guilty plea) from the notional starting point of 10.5 years; the sentence of 7 years was quashed and substituted with 5 years and 3 months' imprisonment because no exceptional circumstances justified extra credit beyond 50%.
25 Sept 2012
Where a defendant provides a useful statement but does not give truthful and material evidence at another's trial, the established customary discount is about 40% (including the guilty plea reduction); absent evidence of real safety risk, speculative concerns do not justify altering the discount or sentence, and the sentencing judge did not err in exercising discretion to afford slightly more than a 40% discount.
29 Jun 2010
Appeal allowed in part: because the appellant provided significant assistance after sentence and had served about seven months, the court reduced the sentence by allowing the appeal against sentence, reducing each charge to nine months imprisonment and ordering the terms to be wholly concurrent so the appellant need not return to prison.
9 Aug 2005
The Court exercised its discretion under section 83Q(3) CPO to entertain a late application because the applicant provided material assistance to the police which led to the conviction of another; that assistance justified a modest reduction in sentence equivalent to the benefit the applicant would have obtained had he pleaded guilty and given the assistance in time; accordingly leave was granted and the sentence was reduced by four months to 4 years and 2 months imprisonment.
16 Apr 2003
The Court held that the 10-year starting point adopted by the sentencing judge was not wrong given the significant quantities and the mixture of methamphetamine and ketamine, but that post-arrest assistance by the applicant entitled her to further reduction of sentence; appeal allowed in part and original sentence on the trafficking charge reduced by eight months from six years two months to five years six months imprisonment.
6 Mar 1996
The appeal was allowed in part because the appellate judge concluded the appellant's assistance to Customs warranted a larger reduction (four months) from the 12‑month starting point, reducing concurrent terms from eight to six months to incentivise cooperation with authorities.
23 Jan 1996
The Court allowed the appeal because the discount given by the sentencing judge (reduction from an 18‑year starting point to 8 years) was manifestly inadequate in light of the applicant's high‑level assistance (including testimony that produced major convictions and exposed him to real risk); the sentence was reduced to 6 years to reflect appropriate weight to that assistance and attendant dangers.