29 Jun 2012
The Court held that a seven‑year starting point for each taxi robbery was appropriate on the admitted facts, the applicant was entitled to a one‑third discount for timely guilty pleas, and applying the totality principle a cumulative sentence of six years was not manifestly excessive; Article 3 did not apply; leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
2 Jun 2004
The Court held that the four year imprisonment imposed was not excessive or manifestly excessive given the seriousness of taxi robbery, the need for deterrent sentencing established in precedent, and that the judge had considered youth and clear records; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
5 Nov 2002
Applying Tran Van Anh, the facts justified a six year starting point; no mitigating circumstances were established; the applicant's claim that he would have pleaded guilty but for counsel's advice was not credible given his extensive record; therefore leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed and loss of three months' time ordered.
25 Sept 2002
The Court held that the trial judge's adoption of a 5-year starting point and the resulting sentence of 3 years 4 months (after full credit for a guilty plea) was not manifestly excessive given the facts (physical seizure of the driver, theft, victim vulnerability and the applicant's lack of good character) and relevant authorities; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
7 Jul 1998
The cautioned statements were voluntary and admissible, the trial judge's factual findings on identification and related evidence were entitled to deference and the convictions were not unsafe; the appropriate starting point for the violent taxi robbery was seven years and the trial judge erred in giving an excessive discount for youth and a clear record, therefore D4's sentence was increased from five to six years while the convictions and D1's application were dismissed.
20 Mar 1997
The Court upheld the trial judge's exercise of sentencing discretion, finding that a total sentence of four years imprisonment for the two taxi robberies was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the facts, the limited discounts applied, and the application of the totality principle.
24 Feb 1993
Given the seizure of the driver by the hair and threat with a sharp weapon the offence warranted a higher starting point than minimal‑force taxi robberies; applying the guidance in force at the time the appropriate starting point was six years and, allowing only a modest reduction for the plea, the correct sentence is five years imprisonment.
20 Feb 1984
The appeal was allowed and the five year imprisonment sentence was conditionally substituted with detention in a detention centre because new material not before the trial judge (medical/psychiatric and Correctional Services information) justified leniency; substitution was conditional on physical fitness for training and availability of a place, otherwise the matter must be returned to court.