3 Mar 2026
The magistrate's sentencing was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and, in the absence of any party seeking to continue the appeal and given the appellant's death, the court exercised its discretion to order that the appeal and related proceedings terminated and abated by reason of the appellant's death.
14 Jun 2001
The sentencing judge erred by failing to identify and give weight to major mitigation (substantial reimbursement and prolonged unexplained delay), and by misapplying totality and starting-point principles; appropriate starting points were fixed for each group of offences, a 50% reduction was warranted for mitigation, and an aggregate sentence of two years imprisonment (reduced from an inferred four-year starting total) was substituted accordingly.
12 Mar 1997
The magistrate did not err in treating the witness's account as a restatement of the appellant's request rather than inadmissible opinion; the evidence established solicitation of loans from both witnesses under s.3 and convictions were upheld. However, because the two offences were so closely connected as one course of conduct, the cumulative 14 months sentence was excessive under the totality principle and the appellant was entitled to immediate release given time already served.
13 Aug 1996
The magistrate's individual sentences for burglary, escape and forged card offences were within acceptable appellate limits and the total effective sentences (29, 28 and 21 months) were not excessive given the separate and serious nature of each offence; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
7 Sept 1989
The Court refused to disturb the trial judge's exercise of sentencing discretion, holding that a cumulative sentence of four years for the three burglaries was not excessive given the circumstances, the applicant's record and the judge's application of the totality principle, and therefore the application to reduce the sentence was dismissed.