11 Feb 2009
Given the particular facts (limited role after sale, lack of evidence appellant knew licence was required or that workers were unlawfully employable, appellant's age, health and clear record, and absence of vice activity), the court set a 3‑month starting point, reduced to 2 months for plea, and suspended the 2‑month imprisonment for 18 months.
27 Sept 1989
Custodial detention was inappropriate on these facts; the appropriate sentence for this appellant was a fine of $5,000; where s.4(4) is engaged by prior convictions at the same premises the magistrate must apply the enhanced penalties and attention must be paid to Court of Appeal directions regarding notice and the use of s.15 certificates.
28 Jun 1988
Minor factual discrepancy in PW1's account did not undermine his overall credibility; the totality of the evidence demonstrated a systematic operation of an unlicensed massage establishment and established the 1st appellant's knowledge and participation, and therefore the convictions were properly upheld.
22 Feb 1988
Appeal allowed and the Training Centre order substituted with a custodial sentence of 3 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years and a fine of 162,000 because the appellant had already served 3 months, there was wide disparity in magistrates' sentencing on the offence, and she likely would have pleaded guilty to the operative charge if represented, justifying a reduced and suspended sentence.
12 Feb 1976
The appellate court found the nine months' detention excessive for this first offence and substituted a sentence of three months' imprisonment, suspended for eighteen months, balancing rehabilitative aims with proportionality.
3 May 1972
The detention order to a drug addiction treatment centre was set aside because such detention is custodial, was not appropriate for the minor offence in question, and was unjustified where psychiatric opinion and the appellant's expressed unwillingness made rehabilitation unlikely; a fine substituted was appropriate.
Detention at a training centre was disproportionate for the petty offence; having served over three months, the first appellant must be released forthwith; the second appellant requires supervision to avoid risk of prostitution and should be placed on probation for one year.