5 Oct 2023
The High Court held the sentencing judge's starting point was within an acceptable range given the aggravating features, the five percent credit for the cultural report was generous because there was no nexus to the offending, and the overall 10 month home detention sentence was not manifestly excessive.
6 Mar 2023
The judge correctly applied the rationale and methodology of the sentencing indication and corrected an arithmetical error; because the final accurate indication differed from the expectation created the appellant had to be able to reconsider withdrawal of his plea under s115, but he chose not to do so; the assessment of discounts for cultural background and remorse was within the available range and the final sentence was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
19 Sept 2022
Given mandatory minimum and cumulative disqualification requirements under the Land Transport Act producing a 12-month floor, and considering the seriousness of the offending (flight from police, erratic high-speed driving, near-collision, crash), the total 18-month disqualification was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
9 Feb 2022
The High Court held the District Court's starting point and 16 month sentence were within the appropriate range given the gravity, recidivism and aggravating features (high breath reading and breach of release conditions) and that the sentencing process did not produce a manifestly excessive outcome; only the unrelated post-release travel restriction was improperly imposed and was deleted.
9 Dec 2021
The 14 month uplift for the unlawful possession of a loaded sawn-off shotgun was excessive because the strong factual connection between that possession and the earlier aggravated robbery meant a lesser cumulative uplift was required to avoid double counting under the totality principle; the appropriate uplift is nine months, and the end sentence is substituted accordingly (aggravated robbery 2 years 9 months; unlawful possession 9 months).
9 Jul 2021
The High Court found on the facts a causal link between the appellant's methamphetamine addiction and personal deprivation and his dishonesty offending such that a 25% discount for personal circumstances would have been appropriate, but after correcting the guilty plea discount (reducing it from 25% to 20%) and applying the proper method (applying the guilty plea discount to the adjusted starting point per Moses), the imposed sentence of 30 months was not manifestly excessive and fell within the available range; the appeal was dismissed.
22 Apr 2021
The High Court held the District Court's starting point of 10 years for discharging a high‑powered .303 rifle at police during a prolonged pursuit was within the available range given seriousness, risk and need for deterrence; the Judge did not err in applying a modest five percent s 27 discount and 25 percent guilty plea discount; the appeal was dismissed.
10 Aug 2020
The sentencing Judge's selection of a starting point at the higher end of the range for the burglary, the subsequent uplifts for dishonesty and prior convictions, and the discount for plea and mitigation produced a 24-month sentence which was not manifestly excessive; no error of principle was shown and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Nov 2019
The appeal is dismissed because the eight‑month home detention sentence was within the acceptable sentencing range for the offending and not manifestly excessive, and the applicant's grievance about travel restrictions is an administrative matter concerning probation approval beyond the appellate court's jurisdiction.
22 Aug 2019
The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing judge's starting point and adjustments were within the range of acceptable discretion; the absence of a youth discount was balanced by the absence of uplift for prior convictions and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.