7 Dec 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing Judge did not err in law: discounts were applied across the starting point, the pleas did not merit larger reductions given their timing, the uplifts and deductions were lawful, and the resulting 28‑month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
10 Jun 2021
Offending attracted a category two starting point of two years and nine months' imprisonment (reflecting commerciality and middleman role), uplifted by three months for methamphetamine possession, then a 30% universal discount for guilty pleas and personal factors resulted in an end sentence of eleven months and two weeks which is to be served by home detention at the defendant's residence.
11 Jul 2017
Given the offending (possession of caustic soda with intent to use in manufacture, possession of GBL and other drug and driving offences), the appropriate starting point and uplifts produced a nominal sentence that justified home detention because the offending was serious but not of a kind to preclude home detention, rehabilitation at Odyssey House was immediately available and likely to reduce reoffending, and credit for pre‑sentence custody and a 17% plea discount were applied.
29 Aug 2016
Sentencing in the absence of a complete pre-sentence report containing home detention appendices contravened s26A Sentencing Act 2002 and was an error; because new and material rehabilitation evidence could materially affect discount and eligibility for home detention the appeal satisfies s250 and required remittal for re-sentencing after the required report is obtained.