30 May 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the High Court found no error in the District Court judge's selection of a ten‑month starting point, the application of discounts and uplifts, or the imposition of special release conditions; the sentence of eight and a half months with conditions was within the available and justified range and was not manifestly excessive.
15 Jul 2021
The District Court erred by not applying Moses' two-step approach with transparent percentage discounts against the 48‑month adjusted starting point; applying discounts of 15%,10%,5% and a 20% guilty plea discount (total 50%) to the 48‑month starting point yields an effective sentence of 24 months, and the High Court substituted concurrent two‑year terms and imposed specified special release conditions.
25 Jun 2021
The Court found the original sentence of two years and three months was excessive and substituted a two year sentence, while imposing special release conditions requiring abstinence and assessment/treatment for alcohol and drugs, with those conditions expiring six months after the sentence expiry date.
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.
6 Aug 2020
The imposition of materially more restrictive special release conditions than were foreshadowed by the sentence indication constituted an error in the sentencing process because the defendant should have been offered the opportunity to withdraw his plea; however, on reassessment the special release conditions (including electronic monitoring and six-month post-expiry duration) were justified on the facts and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Jun 2020
The expert evidence was correctly excluded because it would not be substantially helpful to the jury: the witness had not examined the appellant, relied on medical records two years old, and ADHD varies such that generalised evidence could not assist whether the appellant heard and understood a brief arrest warning; the special release conditions were justified under s93(3) given the appellant's offending history and available clinical material, so the sentence appeal failed.
20 Sept 2019
The Court held (majority) that (1) leave to bring the second appeals was granted; (2) a right of appeal exists under s244 CPA from a District Court decision on a s94 Sentencing Act application to vary release conditions because such variations form part of the sentencing disposition; and (3) the special release conditions imposed (electronic monitoring by GPS, approved residence with an overnight curfew, and participation in a daytime reintegration programme) satisfied s93(3) Sentencing Act purposes and, read together, did not amount to a prohibited s15(3)(ab)/s33 Parole Act residential restr…
7 Nov 2018
The appeal was allowed: the sentence of 11 months' imprisonment was quashed and substituted with six months' imprisonment, with two special release conditions attaching for six months after the sentence expiry requiring (1) attendance and completion of an appropriate alcohol and drug counselling/programme/treatment including residential rehabilitation as directed by a probation officer and (2) attendance for assessment by a departmental psychologist and completion of any recommended counselling, treatment or programme as directed by a probation officer.
20 Oct 2017
Section 94 is subject to the temporal limits created by s93; because Ms Mitchell's sentence expired on 2 December 2015 and the statutory six month limit for conditions under s93 had passed by July 2016, the District Court had no jurisdiction to impose special release conditions on 29 July 2016, and those conditions are invalid. Leave to appeal under s296 was properly granted where a question of law arose and the issue was not merely academic between the parties.
18 Oct 2017
The High Court held the two year starting point for the blackmail charge was within the available range but the District Court double counted prior convictions and offending while on home detention when applying uplifts, producing a manifestly excessive sentence; home detention was inappropriate given reoffending while on home detention; the sentence of two years was quashed and substituted with 19 months' imprisonment and specific special conditions were ordered under s93(2).