24 Sept 2019
The Court held there was no unjustifiable disparity requiring intervention: the sentencing judge correctly ranked culpability among co-offenders and reached a lawful starting point; although a larger personal mitigation discount might have been arguable, the overall end sentence was justified given the generous guilty plea discount and Crown concessions, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
19 Jun 2019
Leave to appeal out of time was declined because the 16 month delay was substantial, the appellant's grounds were largely retrospective changes in health and finances occurring after sentence (not proper grounds to reopen sentence), the sentence was within permissible range and not manifestly excessive, and the interests of justice did not favor extension given lack of merit and available administrative remedies for payment.
13 Mar 2019
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance and there was no risk of miscarriage of justice; the substituted sentence was not manifestly excessive when compared to relevant starting point authorities (between Tilyard and Robinson).
14 Feb 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the disparity in sentences did not render the appellant's sentence manifestly excessive; objective differences (the appellant's initiating role, greater culpability and significant prior convictions versus the co-offender's youth, lesser role and lack of adult record) provided a rational explanation for the heavier fine, so intervention was not justified.
19 Dec 2018
The disparity in discounts for youth and personal circumstances between co-offenders was unjustified on the evidence and not consonant with the appearance of justice; appellate court therefore applied the same discounts to the appellant and reduced and substituted his sentences accordingly.
24 Aug 2018
The Judge erred in calculating the one‑third mitigation discount (intended 11 months, applied 9 months); no unjustifiable disparity existed because the same starting point was adopted and differences arose from offenders' personal circumstances; refusal to impose home detention on the appellant was not an error of principle given prior convictions, prior imprisonment, offending while on bail against same victim and limited remorse. The appropriate result is to reduce the appellant's sentence from 24 months to 22 months imprisonment.
10 Aug 2017
The Court dismissed the appeal because the sentencing disparity was rationally based on differences in plea and culpability and the sentencing judge did not err in principle; an arithmetical error was identified but did not warrant increasing the appellant's sentence on appeal.
17 May 2017
The High Court concluded any apparent disparity was objectively explainable by differences in charges and histories of co-offenders and, although the District Court did not explicitly quantify the EM bail discount under s 9(3A), the overall 10 month sentence fell within the acceptable range given the aggravated nature of the offending and the appellant's serious priors, so the appeal was dismissed.
22 Feb 2016
Leave to file the appeal out of time was granted because the interests of justice warranted consideration; on the merits the starting point for the appellant was not in error given his greater culpability, relevant prior convictions and significant aggravating features (possession of firearms and manufacturing equipment), so the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
20 Jul 2015
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant impermissibly sought to constrain the Court's available remedies, there was no risk of a serious miscarriage of justice, and the sentencing judge had been aware of and taken the settlement into account; ordering reparation was within the judge's discretion and required absent undue hardship.