20 Mar 2026
The application for a s32 certificate is refused because the applicant simply reasserts factual disputes and sentencing complaints that do not raise a point of law of great and general importance under s32(2); the substitution to common assault and the unchanged 14‑day sentence do not present a legal issue warranting certification.
20 Jan 2026
The court held the sentencing judge did not err in selecting a 15‑month starting point and reducing to 10 months for a guilty plea, but applying the totality principle required that 3 months of that sentence run concurrently with the sentence in DCCC 1314/2023; appeal allowed in part.
7 Jan 2025
The trial judge's credibility findings accepting the prosecution's three police witnesses were unimpeached and supported by contemporaneous notes; the appellant deliberately spat at an officer performing his duty, the officers' restraint was reasonable and proportionate, and on the facts the conviction was safe and the 6‑week immediate custodial sentence was not excessive; appeal dismissed.
8 Aug 2024
Given the factual findings (premises about 1,200 sq ft, six gaming machines, 23 seats, organised conversion of points to cash, operation for over two months and rental income), and allowing mitigation for a guilty plea, an immediate custodial sentence of 4 months was not manifestly excessive; the appeal is therefore dismissed.
6 Feb 2024
The sentencing judge correctly identified a 4‑month baseline and reasonably increased the sentence to 6 months due to the appellant's extensive and similar prior convictions; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and there was no proper basis for reduction, so the appeal fails.
9 Feb 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the deputy magistrate properly considered relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, applied correct sentencing principles, and the 6 months' imprisonment sentence for theft was not excessive in light of the deliberate nature of the intrusion and the appellant's record of dishonesty.
14 Jan 2022
Appeal allowed in principle because the unrepresented appellant was not adequately informed of the risk of imprisonment or the potential activation and implications of a prior suspended sentence; the Magistrate should have informed him of the sentencing risk and inquired into the background of the suspended sentence before deciding to activate it, but no order was made because the appellant has since been deported and served the sentence in full.
28 Oct 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because there were no reasonably arguable grounds: newly instructed counsel had adequate continuity and conducted competent defence so lack of preparation did not deny a fair trial; the judge's interventions and directions did not amount to apparent bias or improperly entering the arena when considered in context; the summing-up was not unfair read as a whole; and the sentence (5 years and 4 months) was not manifestly excessive given aggravating features (taking advantage of an intoxicated woman and absence of a condom) and appropriate allowance for mitigation.
21 Apr 2021
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's sentencing exercise fell within reasonable bounds: given five lethal weapons stored at a non-residential address and distributed around a unit with many persons present, a 20-month starting point was justified; the 25% guilty-plea reduction was correctly limited by the late plea after failure to appear and re-arrest; activating the prior 4-month suspended sentence and ordering three months to run consecutively to the current 15-month sentence was a proper exercise of discretion, producing an effective 18-month sentence.
23 Feb 2021
The sentencing judge correctly applied established authorities that taxi robberies warrant higher starting points, properly distinguished the applicant's leading and violent role from co‑defendants, and reasonably arrived at a six year sentence; the applicant's asserted mitigations did not justify reduction and the leave application is dismissed.