24 Oct 2023
The Court held the 15‑month uplift for Arms Act offending was stern but within range and declined to interfere; the Judge's handling of totality was not wrong on the facts; the appellant was entitled to a modest 5% credit for restorative justice; on balance the overall sentence was manifestly excessive and was reduced from 26 to 24 months' imprisonment.
28 Sept 2023
The High Court held the starting point of five years six months imprisonment (five years six months before mitigation) was within the available range for the aggravated robbery given the aggravating features, but the specific four-month uplift for the stolen vehicle was unnecessary as that factor was already reflected in the starting point; the EM bail credit of just under 40% was within range given breaches; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part and the sentence reduced from two years four months to two years two months imprisonment on the aggravated robbery charge.
14 Nov 2022
Leave to extend time was refused because the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for a nearly four‑year delay, the proposed grounds lacked reasonable merit (uplifts were justified by aggravating methamphetamine dealing, addiction evidence was self‑reported and insufficient, and the MPI was properly calculated), and the principle of finality outweighed any late attempt to appeal.
25 May 2022
Given the appellant's recent history of breaches including a contemporaneous break-in of the protected person's home and prior imprisonment for a prior breach, the 12 month starting point was not excessive; however the guilty plea discount should have been the full amount for an early plea, and taking that together with the knife uplift being toward the top of the range, the appropriate sentence for the breach is reduced from 12 months to 10 months' imprisonment, with concurrent sentences and release conditions left unchanged.
5 May 2022
Uplift for the assault with a weapon charge was not excessive and a standalone starting point of about 14–16 months was appropriate, but the sentencing Judge erred in declining to commute the short-term imprisonment to home detention by effectively denying eligibility based solely on the additional weapon charge; appeal allowed in part — original imprisonment quashed and substituted with home detention.
17 Dec 2021
The Court found the uplift for balance offending was not excessive given the collective maximum penalties and representative nature of offending and upheld Mr Carpenter's sentence; however the Court accepted that Ms Temple had not been adequately credited for 22 days in custody and reduced her six months' home detention to four and a half months to correct a manifestly excessive outcome caused by that error.
20 Oct 2021
The starting point of five years six months was within the permissible range for this aggravated jewellery store robbery; an uplift of two months for offending while on intensive supervision was justified, but an additional uplift for prior aggravated robbery convictions was unnecessary given the operation of s 86C which already removes parole and addresses denunciation/community protection; the District Court under-credited restorative justice and post-arrest rehabilitative efforts and over-credit was not warranted for s 27 social background factors absent a clear causal nexus; adjusting cre…
19 Jul 2021
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the grounds were fact‑specific, did not raise matters of general or public importance, and there was no demonstration that a miscarriage of justice had occurred or was likely; Wylie J had properly addressed the complaints about trial fairness, judicial intervention and sentencing, and the sentence and uplifts were within the admissible range.
25 Jun 2021
It was wrong in principle to impose an uplift for methamphetamine found on the appellant in custody where the Crown offered no evidence and it was accepted he had not intended to smuggle it into prison; the three month uplift produced a manifestly unjust sentence and was therefore quashed, with the substituted sentence reflecting the agreed starting point less the same mitigations.
2 Jun 2021
The High Court held the sentencing judge correctly applied the two-step methodology, the 15% guilty plea discount and 10% personal mitigation discount were within range and properly applied to the adjusted starting point, no further totality adjustment was required, the end sentence of 26 months was not manifestly excessive, and an extension of time to bring the appeal was appropriate.