3 Oct 2023
The District Court starting point of 45 months for the methamphetamine offending was within the available range and not manifestly excessive given the offender's role and other indicia; the combined discounts for guilty plea and assistance (treated together with personal mitigation) were within range (effectively 45%) and the final sentence of 22 months' imprisonment is not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
5 May 2023
Court held the starting point of nine years and two months was within Zhang band three and appropriate given 463.15 g and a significant operational role; however the sentencing discount for causative personal mitigation and for demonstrable remorse/rehabilitative potential was inadequate in comparison with co-offenders and case law, so an increased mitigation discount (total 25% for background plus separate credit for remorse/rehabilitation combined with guilty plea credit) and deduction for EM time produced an end concurrent sentence of three years and eleven months, and the original sentenc…
8 Feb 2023
Court accepted appellant’s background and severe substance use disorder were mitigating and causatively linked in part to the offending, but the commercial scale limited mitigation; a combined 15% discount for guilty‑plea and s27 matters was appropriate in the circumstances and no separate credit was awarded for short EM bail due to its limited duration and risk of double‑crediting, so the sentence was reduced from 2 years 3 months to 2 years 1 month.
16 Nov 2022
The Court held the sentencing judge did not err in his choice of starting points or uplifts but increased mitigation in two respects — additional rehabilitation credit for Duff and EM bail credit for Glassie — and substituted reduced custodial terms accordingly.
7 Sept 2022
The High Court held the District Court did not err in adopting a four year starting point for the drug offending and a 12 month uplift for firearms; the Judge correctly applied Moses and Zhang, properly assessed s 27 factors and addiction, awarded 25% guilty plea discount plus a 20% allowance for personal factors and a modest 5% credit for good character, but the appellate court reduced the end sentence to two and a half years to reflect totality and be the least restrictive appropriate outcome.
25 Aug 2022
Offers to supply that are near completion may be treated as supply for the purpose of assessing quantum under the Zhang bands; the starting point of 11 years was open on the facts and the judge's 12 month (approx. 10%) discount for mitigation was not in error; leave to appeal out of time is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Aug 2022
Court adopted a starting point of 2 years 2 months (26 months), added 6 months for participation in an organised criminal group and 6 months for prior convictions to reach 38 months. The sentence was reduced sequentially by 15% for guilty plea and 15% for addiction/rehabilitation, and a further deduction of 4 months for strict EM bail compliance, producing a notional sentence of 23 months. As a result home detention was available and the court imposed 10 months' home detention on the defendant.
28 Jul 2022
Starting point of 13.5 years was available given the quantity and central middleman role; however the sentencing judge understated personal mitigation. Increasing personal mitigation to 15% and combining with a 15% guilty plea discount reduced the end sentence to nine years five months; leave to appeal out of time was granted and the appeal allowed.
11 May 2022
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the five‑year starting point for the methamphetamine offending was within range, the 15% uplift for previous convictions (approximately 12 months) was excessive; recalculation with an appropriate uplift of six months and the applied discounts (guilty plea and personal factors) supported reducing the substituted sentence to four years nine months' imprisonment and ordering destruction of the pistol and forfeiture of $32,500 to the Crown.
11 Apr 2022
The Court upheld findings on quantity and roles where supported by evidence and credible adverse credibility findings (McMillan), dismissed McMillan and Taui sentence appeals, and allowed the Crown appeal in Philip: a sentencing judge may take additional information into account after an accepted sentence indication under s116 CPA but must afford adequate notice and address disputed facts under s24(2)(a); on reassessment Philip's starting point and discounts were manifestly too low so home detention was quashed and substituted with imprisonment of two years eleven months.