12 May 2022
The District Court's substituted sentence of 11 months' home detention was quashed and, having fully credited the approximately seven months the appellant had spent in custody when commuting an 18 month imprisonment to home detention, the appropriate substituted sentence is two months' home detention; accompanying six months post-release conditions and a 15 month driving disqualification remain unchanged.
20 Oct 2021
The sentencing Judge did not err in declining to commute the sentence to home detention or in refusing leave to apply: the offender's extensive record of similar offending and breaches of orders, combined with the unsuitability of the proposed residence and occupant (firearms/drug concerns), meant imprisonment was the least restrictive and appropriate sentence; the High Court, on rehearing, would not disturb that discretionary judgment within its margin of appreciation.
3 Aug 2021
The District Court erred in treating the offender as on home detention when the offending occurred while he was subject to intensive supervision. There was no adequate reason to depart from the ordinary practice that home detention approximates half the equivalent imprisonment term. The appropriate adjusted starting point was 10 months' imprisonment, reduced by a 15% guilty plea discount and 5% for recent good behaviour (total 20%) to 8 months' imprisonment, commuted to four months' home detention with the same conditions previously imposed; appeal allowed and sentence substituted accordingly.
14 Apr 2021
The Judge correctly exercised sentencing discretion: the offending was premeditated, a targeted unanticipated blow to the head of a vulnerable victim causing unconsciousness and injury, and the need for denunciation and deterrence outweighed personal mitigating factors; therefore home detention would be 'much less than the least restrictive outcome' and the 18‑month imprisonment (after plea discount) was within range and must be upheld.
22 Jun 2020
The High Court held the District Court did not err: having considered seriousness (including editing and distribution of the mosque attack footage), the offender's lack of remorse and minimisation, prior imprisonment, associated firearm and drug offending, and limited rehabilitative prospects in the community, imprisonment remained the least restrictive sentence consistent with denunciation and deterrence; the refusal to commute to home detention was upheld.
13 Dec 2019
Home detention was appropriate because the sentencing purposes of denunciation and deterrence could be met by a monitored community-based sentence, the offender had limited and largely minor prior convictions, had taken credible steps toward rehabilitation, had a suitable monitored residence with prior EM bail compliance, and the unproven subsequent charges could not be relied on; accordingly the 18 month imprisonment was commuted to 8 months home detention.
29 Jun 2018
Given the appellant's prolonged, deliberate and repeated non‑compliance with community work and other sentences, the Judge acted within discretion in using a three month starting point, substituting three months for outstanding community work and declining home detention because a less restrictive sanction would not meet deterrence and accountability; appeal dismissed.
20 Jul 2017
The Court granted the application for recall and reissued the judgment to include an order under s 80I(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 granting the appellant leave to apply to the District Court for cancellation of the sentence of imprisonment and substitution of a sentence of home detention; the remainder of the judgment was confirmed.