22 Sept 2023
The Judge erred by under-crediting the guilty pleas and failing to give appropriate mitigation credit for the s27 report; the guilty plea discount was adjusted to 25% and an additional 10% discount was allowed for the s27 mitigation, rendering the original sentence manifestly excessive and requiring substitution with a reduced custodial term of three years ten months' imprisonment.
4 Jul 2023
The High Court found no error in the District Court's approach: use of Nuku as guidance for starting point was permissible, the uplifts for related offending and prior convictions were justified, and the combined adjustments including a 15% guilty plea discount produced a final 28‑month sentence that was within the available range and not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
4 Apr 2023
The High Court held that the police evidence was uncontradicted and established that the appellant deliberately damaged the police vehicle; there was no evidential foundation for a defence of his brother and no procedural error or unfairness creating a real risk that the outcome was affected, therefore the convictions and penalties were properly entered and the appeal must be dismissed.
7 Dec 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing Judge did not err in law: discounts were applied across the starting point, the pleas did not merit larger reductions given their timing, the uplifts and deductions were lawful, and the resulting 28‑month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
24 Nov 2022
The High Court found the district court's starting point of nine months for the totality of offending was within range given the principal assault and multiple assaults on police; the cumulative three month re-sentence for earlier offending was appropriate given the offender's persistent breaches and history; the 20% plea discount was justified by timing and strength of evidence; no additional credit was warranted for time on restrictive bail or pre-sentence custody; accordingly there was no error rendering the sentence manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
17 Nov 2022
The sentencing Judge erred by proceeding on the basis the sentence indication remained accepted despite a material reduction of the lead charge; re-sentencing on correct basis produced a proper starting point and uplifts leading to an appropriate end sentence of 12 months and one week's imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention and post-release conditions for six months.
23 Aug 2022
The appeal was allowed because the sentencing Judge failed to account for approximately five months remand custody when converting a notional six month imprisonment to three months home detention; applying the two-for-one remand credit extinguished the notional sentence, so the home detention and community work orders were quashed and the defendant was re-sentenced to concurrent prison terms that result in immediate release subject to special release conditions under the Parole Act.
12 May 2022
The original 20 month aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive because the starting points and cumulative uplift were incorrect and insufficient weight was given to mitigation (including remorse, ill health linked to alcoholism and rehabilitation prospects); the appropriate approach was to set starting points of 16 months for the demanding with menaces and five months for the breach (total 21), apply no uplift for dishonesty, allow a combined mitigation discount to 33%, and impose a substituted sentence of 14 months' imprisonment (11 months on demanding with menaces and 3 months cumulative…
28 Apr 2022
The District Court sentence of 29.5 months was manifestly excessive in light of fresh psychological evidence and sentencing principles: the 18 month starting point for the lead offences was within range without importing prior convictions, the uplift for prior convictions should be reduced from 20% to 10%, a 15% discount for personal mitigating factors (based on the psychological report) is appropriate, the fines-remission uplift should be two months, and the substituted global sentence is 22 months' imprisonment.
26 Nov 2021
The sentencing Judge overlooked discrete discounts for previous good character and for prolonged restrictive bail; allowing those discounts reduced the effective imprisonment starting point and justified substituting the original ten months home detention with seven and a half months home detention while rejecting community detention as inappropriate given the seriousness of the offending.