2 Feb 2023
The proceeding was struck out under r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016 because the applicant had effectively abandoned the action by failing to participate and the principal relief sought had been rendered moot by the removal of the curfew; striking out is appropriate and proportionate, and the applicant may commence fresh proceedings if he chooses.
17 Jul 2019
The Court held that the Court of Appeal's quashing of the surrender order and the unprecedented length of detention constituted a material change of circumstances that reduced the immediacy of surrender and rendered continued electronic monitoring and a 24 hour curfew unnecessarily oppressive; accordingly the Court varied bail conditions to remove electronic monitoring and the 24 hour curfew and imposed less restrictive but supervisory conditions including residence, night-away notice, weekly reporting and travel restrictions, with bail to continue pending final determination and any further…
4 Mar 2019
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the overall 12 month sentence was not manifestly excessive given multiple aggravated offences, the Judge's consideration of reports and totality, and appropriate mitigation; the release conditions were lawful and proportionate because programme attendance is not intensive monitoring and the statutory criteria for residential restrictions were not met, so the conditions were valid under s 93(3).
4 Oct 2018
For rioting where the defendant's role was comparable to co-defendants, a 15‑month starting point was appropriate; allow a four‑month reduction for restrictive EM bail conditions and a three‑month reduction for a guilty plea producing an eight‑month term, and convert that term to six months community detention (with an 8:00 pm–4:30 am curfew) given continued full‑time employment and prior compliance with EM bail; no community work imposed due to demanding employment.
24 Aug 2018
The challenged conditions were lawful: the curfew and electronic monitoring did not amount to a s 33 residential restriction because the appellant was not subject to all s 33(2) requirements; all challenged conditions exhibited a rational nexus to the purposes in s 93(3), and were necessary and proportional given the appellant's high risk and rehabilitative needs; the programme condition fell within s 15(3)(b)/s16 as a permissible placement and aimed to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration.
13 Dec 2017
The appeal was allowed in part: the relationship notification condition was quashed for vagueness and replaced with a narrowly tailored condition requiring notification of any intention to enter into an intimate and/or domestic relationship; all other challenged conditions (curfew, GPS electronic monitoring, prohibition on entering internet cafés/public libraries without approval) were upheld as necessary and proportionate given the appellant's extensive history of stalking, harassment and multiple contraventions of protection orders and the need to protect the public and enforce compliance.
18 Jul 2017
The Court granted the application under s94 because additional time-limited special conditions (six months GPS/electronic monitoring, residence curfew, non-association with the victim's family, prohibition on alcohol/illicit substances, and requirement for psychological assessment and any recommended treatment) were necessary and proportionate to reduce the risk of reoffending, to promote rehabilitation and reintegration, and to address the reasonable concerns of the victim's family; the respondent accepted the amended conditions.
8 Nov 2007
The appeal was dismissed because the bail condition was subject to imminent review in five days and the police reported compliance rendering immediate appellate determination inappropriate; judicial restraint and efficient case management justify dismissal.