31 May 2023
It was an error to consider totality only after making personal mitigation discounts; the overall starting point should have been reduced from nine years to six years; after applying appropriate discounts (20% guilty plea, 25% personal mitigation, 7.5 months EM bail credit) the correct sentence is two years and eight months' imprisonment, and the original sentence is manifestly excessive.
5 Jul 2022
The lead offending comprised three daylight drive‑by shootings of significant planning and public risk; a starting point of six years' imprisonment applied to the intentional damage charges in which the defendant directly participated. Uplifts were appropriate: +2 years for participation in an organised criminal group, +2 years for the remaining intentional damage/aggravated burglary for which the defendant played an organising/party role, and +0.5 year for separate firearms/ammunition possession occurring on later dates, producing an adjusted starting point of 10 years 6 months. Personal fac…
6 Jul 2021
Firearms offending was treated as the lead offence with a 22‑month starting point; an uplift of 20% was warranted for prior convictions and offending on bail; mitigating factors (addiction and rehabilitation) justified a 20% discount, EM bail time warranted 15% credit, and a 20% guilty plea discount applied resulting in a net discount of 35% reducing the 22‑month starting point to 14 months; accounting for two months previously spent in custody, the appropriate sentence was six months' home detention; firearms and ammunition were ordered destroyed.
20 May 2020
Appeal dismissed; sentencing Judge did not err in selecting starting points or in applying Zhang to place the methamphetamine offending at the bottom of band two given quantity and purity and contextual factors; there was inadequate persuasive evidence of addiction or mental health causally reducing culpability; discounts for rehabilitation, guilty plea and restorative steps were reasonable; totality adjustments were permissibly applied and the end sentence of 42 months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
29 Mar 2017
The High Court held the uplift applied for the firearms and related offending was properly grounded in the direct connection between the shotgun/ammunition and protection of a large hydroponic cannabis operation, the protection order breach and offending while on bail warranted recognition, the cumulative result was not manifestly excessive given the generous three-month trial concession, and consequently the appeal was dismissed and the five-year sentence upheld.