15 Dec 2023
Because the sentencing Judge failed to account for 160 days remanded in custody, the four months' home detention was manifestly excessive and effectively already served; the home detention order was therefore quashed and substituted with specified supervision sentences, while other penalties remained.
15 Aug 2019
The appeal is dismissed because the final sentence of 22 months' imprisonment was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive; the sentencing Judge applied orthodox methodology and allowed appropriate discounts for personal factors and plea, and the appellant's erroneous report of remand time did not render the end sentence wrong in principle.
9 Jul 2019
There is no legal basis to re-sentence the defendant on the assault with intent to rob because the Court of Appeal did not, expressly or by implication, substitute or remit the sentence under s236; the original sentence imposed by Nation J stands and scheduled re-sentencing is cancelled.
19 Jul 2018
Because the sentencing judge proceeded on an incorrect calculation of time served, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the 12-month sentence and substituted a nine-month sentence to give effect to the judge's stated intention.
21 Jun 2018
Starting point of 18 months imprisonment for rioting was adopted (mirroring co-defendant precedent), uplifted by two months due to 29 prior convictions, then reduced by 25% (five months) for an early guilty plea, producing a final sentence of 15 months imprisonment, with immediate release due to time already served.
26 Apr 2018
The re-sentence was manifestly excessive because the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the unserved portion of the original community-based sentence under s69I(4), applied improper discounts and did not ensure proportionality; recalculation applying correct principles, appropriate guilty plea discount and aggregation for new offending yields a substituted sentence of 23 months imprisonment which could have been imposed initially and therefore replaces the 27 month sentence.
18 Jul 2017
Because the respondent accepted error and on assessment of submissions and time already served the appropriate final sentence was six months' imprisonment, the Court quashed the 10.5 month sentence and replaced it with six months' imprisonment with no release conditions.
8 May 2015
Habeas corpus was declined because a valid warrant of commitment issued after the sentencing hearing requires custody and Parole Act 2002 s76(1) fixes the start date as the date of imposition, preventing backdating to achieve immediate release; for sentences over two years release during the term is a matter for the Parole Board, but the Court granted leave to appeal and bail pending that appeal.