17 Feb 2021
The High Court held the Magistrate correctly exercised the discretion under s.292 CPC and sentencing principles (one-transaction rule, totality, public interest and plea mitigation) and there was no error in declining to order full concurrency; the sentences as imposed and ordered to run separately are confirmed.
17 Feb 2021
The High Court upheld the magistrate's sentencing exercise: the magistrate correctly balanced mitigation from early guilty pleas and personal circumstances against public interest, repeat offending and prior conviction; s.292 CCrP grants discretion as exercised and there was no error of law or manifest unreasonableness in ordering the sentences to run separately as imposed; appeal is dismissed.
17 Feb 2021
High Court found no error in the Magistrate's application of law or exercise of discretion under s.292 CPC; the Magistrate properly balanced mitigation (early plea, family) against public interest and the multiplicity and seriousness of separate housebreaking offences and therefore the sentences and their commencement as ordered were affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
17 Feb 2021
The High Court found no error in the Magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion including the application of s.292; the Magistrate properly balanced early guilty pleas and personal mitigation against public interest and repetitive offending, and therefore the sentences and the direction that they run separately (not concurrently) were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.