18 Oct 2021
The appeal was dismissed because the overall 18‑month sentence was within the available range; the starting points for the cumulative offending (including dangerous driving and theft) were justified and the judge legitimately prioritized community protection over a discount for addiction given the appellant's poor engagement and high risk of reoffending.
14 May 2021
The cultural report established a sufficient causal nexus between the appellant's upbringing, substance abuse and the offending to justify a limited mitigation discount of 10%, but that mitigation was constrained by the appellant's multiple prior driving-related convictions and her awareness of risk; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal in part and substituted a reduced sentence of four years and one month imprisonment on the lead charge.
7 Aug 2018
The Court held the three-year starting point was excessive given there was no actual violence and the weapon was an imitation firearm; the six-month uplift for prior offending/proximity to release was excessive and reduced to two months; after deducting six months for personal mitigation and the late guilty plea the appropriate sentence for aggravated robbery is two years and four months' imprisonment; the two-month sentence for unlawful entry is confirmed and ordered to be served cumulatively, producing a total of 30 months' imprisonment.
30 Jan 2018
The District Court's starting point of 12 months was beyond the appropriate range for the offending; having regard to comparable authorities a starting point of seven months was appropriate and the uplift for prior convictions and the discount for an early guilty plea each approximated 20% and therefore largely offset, so the appropriate substituted sentence is seven months' imprisonment.