26 Aug 2022
Dismissal was warranted because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with explicit Court directions to file particularised grounds of appeal, provided no reasonable explanation for the ongoing delay, and was put on formal notice that non-compliance risked dismissal under s 338; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
12 May 2022
The High Court dismissed the appeal because, on the totality of the communications and the appellant's admissions in cross-examination, there was sufficient evidence that the appellant threatened to disclose intimate images with the intent to cause the complainant to restore his electronic access and continue some form of relationship (a benefit), thereby satisfying the elements of blackmail under s237 of the Crimes Act 1961.
3 Jun 2021
The High Court accepted a 20 month starting point for the three burglaries as a baseline but upheld an uplift of one year nine months for multiple and serious breaches of a protection order plus smaller uplifts for receiving and breach of supervision; after applying totality and modest discounts for remorse, rehabilitation and guilty plea (but finding the evidence of drug addiction insufficient to justify a significant additional discount or the imposition of home detention) the resulting end sentence of approximately 29–30 months was not manifestly excessive, so 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.
4 Mar 2021
The High Court found the words objectively amounted to a threat to injure and the intention to frighten could be inferred from the words and context (prior friction, trespass notice, lockdown); the complainant was credible; no material error or reliance on extraneous matters that affected the verdict; the sentence ($300 emotional harm reparation) was not manifestly excessive, so appeals dismissed.
4 Feb 2021
The court found the offending overall to be of low to moderate gravity, that the likely employment consequences of conviction were proportionate (low to moderate) and not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence, therefore the statutory test for discharge without conviction under s106/107 was not met; on sentencing the court quashed prior supervision and community work and ordered conviction with discharge on the assault charge.
16 Dec 2020
Appellate court upheld the District Court's factual findings because the judge's credibility assessments were supported by appellant's admissions, CCTV and multiple eyewitness accounts, and no error or miscarriage of justice in conviction or in sentencing was demonstrated; therefore the convictions and sentence stand.
26 Nov 2020
The appeal was dismissed because the record contained admissible evidence establishing the offence, there was no error in the District Court's factual findings or sentencing, and the jurisdictional challenge was unargued and without merit.
6 Nov 2020
The appeal was allowed because the Judge erred in not giving sufficient credit for mitigating factors (notably addiction and personal circumstances) and in failing to adjust cumulative sentences to reflect totality. The Court reduced the sentences imposed on the second set of charges from 21 months to concurrent terms of 15 months, to be served cumulatively on the existing 15 months sentence for the first set, producing an overall effective sentence of 30 months imprisonment.
4 Sept 2020
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the appeal did not raise any matter of general or public importance and there was no risk of miscarriage of justice; the sentencing judge had taken the applicant's personal circumstances into account and no special sentencing rules for returning offenders are required.