24 Apr 2023
Starting point for the representative assault was set at 2.5 months' imprisonment, uplifted by two weeks for similar prior offending, resulting in a total sentence of three months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence because of the victim's vulnerability and abuse of trust and absence of mitigating factors.
19 Feb 2021
Leave to bring a second appeal against sentence was declined because the proposed appeal raised no new question of principle, the lower courts had applied established sentencing law correctly, the aggravating features justified the two-year custodial sentence, and neither public importance nor a miscarriage of justice was shown.
16 Dec 2020
Appeal allowed because the sentencing calculation under Moses contained an arithmetical error reducing the corrected end sentence to 24 months which triggered consideration of home detention; changed circumstances (receipt of $20,000 on account of reparation), genuine remorse, rehabilitative prospects and strong community support meant the least restrictive appropriate sentence was home detention; original imprisonment quashed and substituted with 11 months home detention, reparation amended to $42,976.61 and emotional harm payment $7,000.
18 Nov 2019
The proposed GP evidence was neither fresh nor sufficiently cogent to undermine the complainant's evidence or render the convictions unsafe; the absence of that evidence at trial did not produce a miscarriage of justice, and the sentencing starting point and discounts were within acceptable range so the convictions and seven-year effective sentence must stand.
14 Dec 2018
The Court allowed the appeal because the sentencing Judge, after fixing a high starting point for sophisticated Ponzi-style fraud, failed to stand back and assess totality with the existing unrelated sentence; recalculating totality produced a lower starting point and after the same discounts the appropriate sentence for the BlackfortFX offending is six years' imprisonment, cumulative on the existing sentence, with a three year minimum period of imprisonment.
22 Jul 2016
The Court adopted a historic starting point of four years' imprisonment reflecting sentencing patterns for indecent assaults in the period of offending, elevated by serious aggravating features (breach of trust as father, skin-on-skin contact, prolonged and repeated offending, premeditation and concealment), then applied a global discount of nine months for age, health and prior good character, resulting in an effective total sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment to be served concurrently on all counts.
10 Dec 2015
The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success: even accepting the narrower factual challenge on demotion, the primary basis for dismissal — repeated deception of vulnerable subordinates that undermines the Defence Force ethos and makes retention intolerable — stood and meant the interests of justice did not justify extending time for a further appeal.
4 May 2015
Although the Court Martial departed from the preferred sequence by determining dismissal before fully assessing personal mitigating factors, that procedural error was not outcome-determinative because the appellate court found dismissal inevitable: repeated, premeditated deception of vulnerable subordinate personnel and betrayal of a mentorship relationship made retention intolerable and dismissal proportionate; fresh psychiatric evidence was admitted but did not alter that conclusion.