18 Jul 2023
The appeal is allowed because the trial Judge failed to make specific findings that the prior specified acts relied upon to establish the requisite pattern were proven and misdirected concerning the required mens rea (confusing intent with knowledge), producing a miscarriage of justice; conviction and sentence are therefore quashed and no retrial is ordered because of the delay.
30 Jul 2020
The High Court concluded the District Court judge properly identified the aggravating features, the adopted starting point and subsequent adjustments fell within the available range, the 15% credit for Asperger's Syndrome was appropriate, and the final sentence of two years three months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
19 Feb 2020
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave because the Court of Appeal properly addressed the factual question of late disclosure and found no miscarriage of justice, and because s123B(4) of the Sentencing Act 2002 permits a sentencing Judge to make a protection order where domestic violence proceedings have been filed; the statutory criteria for leave under s74 Senior Courts Act 2016 were not met.
30 May 2019
The Court declined the Crown‑disclosure application because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested material existed and was both relevant and necessary for the due conduct of the pending appeals; many items were already disclosed or non‑existent and one category was properly withheld under s 16(1)(j), so no court order for further disclosure was warranted.
14 May 2019
The application was declined because the applicant failed to meet s24(3) particularity requirements, the requests were speculative and unlikely to be held or relevant, and the matters were already subject to testing by trial cross-examination while disclosure would impose an intrusive process on victims.
24 Apr 2018
Appeal allowed in part: the harassment conviction was quashed reducing the available charge range and, having found genuine remorse and given partial credit for time served, the sentence of 120 hours community work was manifestly excessive in light of the altered charge range and was reduced to 70 hours to properly reflect denunciation and deterrence while recognizing mitigation; a fine was inappropriate.
7 Feb 2018
Court quashed the criminal harassment conviction because several of the emails relied on to establish the necessary pattern either formed the subject of other charges that were pleaded or were withdrawn in circumstances that amounted to dismissal/previous conviction issues, leaving insufficient distinct acts to sustain the harassment offence; convictions for unauthorised access were upheld based on findings that the appellant lacked authority and credibility of her account was rejected by the Judge.
20 Apr 2016
The Judge lawfully had power under s 93(1) and s 93(3) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to impose the challenged special release conditions; those conditions intelligibly served one or more of the statutory purposes (reducing reoffending, facilitating rehabilitation/reintegration, addressing victim concerns) and therefore the appeal against them is dismissed.
21 Jan 2016
The sentencing judge erred in law by factoring in pre-sentence detention (remand) when determining the custodial sentence that would otherwise be imposed; because the correct otherwise sentence was two years and eight months imprisonment (not a short-term sentence), s15A(1)(b) precluded commuting to home detention, so the home detention sentence was unlawful and the appropriate sentence is two years and eight months' imprisonment.
28 Nov 2008
The court fixed a starting point for the lead sexual violation offences consistent with authorities (rarely less than eight years after contested trial) and imposed a two year uplift to reflect separate, serious blackmail and particularly serious criminal harassment, resulting in an effective concurrent sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.