3 Nov 2022
The sentencing Judge erred by not fully crediting six months of pre-sentence custody when imposing home detention; the correct remedy is to quash the sentence and substitute a reduced home detention term reflecting that credit (five months and two weeks).
22 Jun 2022
The sentencing judge erroneously proceeded on an assumption that the second custodial sentence could be backdated to the start date of the first sentence; because there is no statutory power to back-date a custodial sentence this produced materially more custody than intended and, applying s 250 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the appeal is allowed and the 10 month sentence quashed and replaced with a two month sentence to operate cumulatively from 4 May 2022.
27 Aug 2021
The Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the minimum period of imprisonment was not properly imposed and must be quashed; the principal sentence of 12 years and nine months imprisonment was lawful and therefore remains.
11 May 2020
Recall granted. The reference to the wrong charge was a clerical/annotation error and is corrected by reissuing the judgment to reflect that the conviction concerned a punch to the head. Sentences for the male assaults female were unlawfully imposed in excess of the statutory maximum; the appropriate term for each such charge is one year, but this Court lacks jurisdiction to amend unlawful sentences by recall and the District Court/sentencing court should be asked to correct under s 180 Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The 'ride or die' remark was factual narrative and did not cause prejudice and…
26 Apr 2016
Possession of the pistol began after the vehicle was stopped and was merely incidental to being in the vehicle; it was not facilitated by use of a motor vehicle within the meaning of s124 Sentencing Act 2002, so the disqualification was imposed in error and must be quashed.