6 Dec 2023
The Court found the guilty plea discount should be 25% (pleas were entered reasonably once charges clarified and after change of counsel) and that a 15% discount for assistance to Police should have been applied; retaining the Judge's 15% personal mitigation discount, the original sentence of 2 years 6 months was manifestly excessive and was set aside and substituted with 1 year 7 months imprisonment.
7 Apr 2020
The application for suppression is declined because the statutory suppression regime in s 19 of the Bail Act did not automatically apply (the appeal was against sentence only) and the judgment's reference to an offer of assistance disclosed no sensitive details and recorded that the information was of no use to the police.
17 Oct 2018
The Court held the uplifts applied by the District Court for the theft and for previous dishonesty convictions were within the available range and not manifestly excessive, but the sentencing Judge erred by failing to give any tangible credit for the appellant's demonstrated remorse and for his genuine but uncorroborated assistance to police. The Court therefore reduced the end sentence by applying a one month discount for remorse and a four month discount for assistance, resulting in a reduced burglary sentence of two years one month and a concurrent theft sentence of five months.
25 Oct 2017
The High Court held the District Court starting point of three years three months was within the proper range given the spree nature and significant domestic burglary; the appellant's cooperation did not materially reduce culpability because police had independent evidence and obtained information from co-offenders; there was no gross unjustified disparity with the co-offender; home detention was unavailable and inappropriate; therefore the sentence of two years three months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
10 Apr 2017
The sentencing judge made material errors: he set too low a starting point for the lead offence, applied an insufficient uplift for totality, gave unjustified role reductions, and applied guilty plea/assistance discounts in the wrong sequence which inflated their effect; correcting those errors required increasing Vaeafisi's sentence (appeal allowed and sentence increased to 5 years 6 months concurrent on six charges) while dismissing the Crown appeal as to Kirk because her exceptional personal circumstances and partial compliance with home detention made substitution of imprisonment unjust d…
5 Oct 2016
Section 104 applied because the murder occurred in the course of a robbery and other aggravating features were present; applying the Williams two-step, the appropriate MPI absent s 104 was about 14–15 years, s 104 prescribed 17 years but given accepted substantial assistance by the appellant it was manifestly unjust to impose 17 years and a three year reduction to a 14 year MPI was appropriate; extension of time to appeal granted and appeal dismissed.
4 May 2015
The sentencing judge's starting point and adjustments were within the appropriate range for the offending given the aggravating features and personal factors; the credit for guilty pleas and assistance was appropriate; disparity with the co-offender did not establish error because of materially higher culpability and other aggravating factors, therefore no different sentence should be imposed under s250(2).