17 Dec 1998
The Court affirmed the Magistrate's findings that $40,000 was missing and that the appellant's admissions, accepted as truthful by the Magistrate, established his guilt; there was no reason to overturn the credibility findings or disturb the conviction.
30 Apr 1997
The Court refused leave to appeal because the sentence of 2 years and 8 months concurrent, although heavy, was within the judge's proper discretion after considering mitigation (guilty plea, good character) and aggravating features (breach of trust, duration and amount), and was not manifestly excessive.
31 May 1996
The sentence was upheld because the sentencing judge properly balanced aggravating factors (position of trust, duration and amount) against mitigation (guilty plea, clear record), adopted a low starting point and applied a just discount; the resultant 18 month term was lenient and not open to interference on appeal.
12 Jul 1988
The conviction was upheld because credible employee testimony, corroborated by documentary evidence, proved theft beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence was reduced from two years to eighteen months because, although imprisonment was warranted given the position of trust and prior dispositions, two years was disproportionate for a defendant who had not previously been imprisoned.
22 Mar 1983
The five year sentence was excessive in all the circumstances; having regard to the large but partly recovered sum, the appellant's position of trust (aggravating) and the mitigating factors of sudden impulse, desperation, prior faithful service, low pay and a full post-arrest confession, the appropriate substituted sentence is three years imprisonment.
18 Apr 1972
Although the theft constituted a breach of trust, the appellant's lower position, unblemished record and personal circumstances justified suspension of the 12‑month sentence; the appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence is suspended for two years.