27 Nov 2023
The Judge did not err: refusal to adjourn was justified because the appellant had not consented to electronic monitoring in the pre‑sentence report and sought it too late, prior unsatisfactory compliance with community‑based sentences made a community sanction unsupportable, and a six‑week term of imprisonment was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.
6 Nov 2023
Because the respondent had absconded and the unchallenged health assessor's report together with his criminal history satisfied, on a provisional basis, the statutory ESO risk criteria in ss107I and 107IAA, the court was entitled to and did grant an interim supervision order under s107FA with specified conditions.
18 Sept 2023
The application for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to establish any reviewable error: the Board disclosed and considered victim submissions, psychological reports and risk assessments; it gave adequate reasons for finding the proposed safety and release plans insufficiently comprehensive; electronic monitoring was available but was not determinative; there was no breach of natural justice in the conduct of the hearing; the decision was within the Board's statutory discretion and consequently lawful.
3 Jul 2023
The District Court's starting point was excessive given the circumstances; the correct approach was an overall starting point of eight months (including uplift for prior offending), with deductions of 25% for the guilty plea and a little over 10% for homelessness, producing a final concurrent sentence of five months' imprisonment and one concurrent 14‑day term; the appeal is allowed and the sentences are quashed and replaced accordingly.
17 Apr 2023
The court was satisfied the defendant failed to comply with home detention conditions, that continuation of home detention was not necessary to meet sentencing purposes for community safety and accountability, and accordingly cancelled home detention and substituted a term of imprisonment as permitted by s 80F, adjusting the substituted term to account for the unserved portion of the home detention sentence pursuant to s 80G(2).
23 Mar 2023
The EM special condition was lawful and properly imposed because it was tailored to Whichman's demonstrated risk to the identified victim, served a legitimate protective function (deterrence and early detection), was the least restrictive means appropriate given the risk, and its duration and scope were proportionate and not more onerous or longer than required for victim safety under Sentencing Act s93(3) and Parole Act principles; embarrassment or impediments to reintegration did not outweigh the protection required.
6 Dec 2022
The sentencing Judge meaningfully accounted for time on EM bail and remand by converting the sentence indication of imprisonment or home detention to a less restrictive five month community detention coupled with 12 months' intensive supervision; because community detention is materially less restrictive than home detention the sentence was within the available range and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
30 Nov 2022
The Court held the Parole Board was required to apply the 'undue risk' test when deciding whether to vary or discharge special parole conditions and must assess both likelihood and nature/seriousness of reoffending using contemporaneous and relevant evidence; the Board failed to engage adequately with up‑to‑date community risk assessments and therefore acted unreasonably, warranting quashing of its decision and remittal for reconsideration in light of current evidence.
22 Nov 2022
The High Court held the sentencing judge erred in refusing to grant leave to apply later to substitute imprisonment for home detention because the judge did not give sufficient weight to evidence of genuine rehabilitation progress and did not provide adequate basis for doubting genuineness; accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and leave is granted to apply for substitution if a suitable address becomes available.
18 Aug 2022
Respondent has a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending and meets the s 107IAA criteria demonstrating a very high risk of committing a relevant violent offence; strong justification exists for an ESO; a five year Extended Supervision Order is the minimum period required for community safety; special conditions are to be set by the Parole Board; the Court lacks jurisdiction to cancel or vary an electronic monitoring interim condition imposed previously on an ISO (challenge should proceed to the Parole Board), but the Court may impose a limited interim curfew pending Board determination.