5 Mar 2021
The District Court erred in imposing 12 months' intensive supervision because Judge Menzies did not identify or establish the s54C requirements (conditions needed for longer than 12 months or conditions unavailable under supervision); lacking jurisdiction to impose intensive supervision, the appropriate replacement is 12 months' supervision on the same conditions.
8 Mar 2018
The High Court held the six year starting point was available and not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the head and limb injuries, victim vulnerability, breach of trust and concealment; the 25% guilty plea discount was generous, appellant's depression did not warrant a meaningful additional discount, and the District Court sentence of four years six months imprisonment was affirmed.
13 Feb 2018
The defendant's offending over 16 years (serious violence to partner and repeated abuse of children, use of weapons, permanent injuries and control) merited a global starting point of 12 years' imprisonment; the three‑strikes regime did not apply on available evidence; uplift for prior record would risk double counting and was not applied; given exceptional seriousness a minimum period equal to half the sentence (6 years) was required because release after one‑third would be insufficient to achieve sentencing purposes; a mix of cumulative and concurrent terms was used to structure the sentenc…
14 Nov 2016
The sentencing Judge did not err in concluding that imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence given the seriousness, duration, use of weapons, injuries and breach of trust; the District Court sentence indication did not create a reasonable expectation of home detention and there was no need for further adjournment to pursue home detention arrangements.