6 Mar 2020
The starting point of 15 months for receiving was within range on the facts and the appellant had admitted $50,000 by plea; the arithmetic error reducing the nominal imprisonment to 13.4 months did not affect the Judge's holistic decision to impose six months community detention, so the final sentence stands.
13 Feb 2020
Judge's uplifts were within range and discounts were not inadequate but an arithmetical error altered the end sentence; on corrected calculation the appropriate substituted sentence is 24 months' imprisonment and, given the available rehabilitative placement at the Grace Foundation, the appellant should be granted leave to apply to the District Court for cancellation of imprisonment and substitution with home detention to permit residential rehabilitation.
17 Jun 2019
Although the sentencing Judge made arithmetical errors that reduced the sentence, the end sentence actually imposed (two years and ten months' imprisonment) was within the available and appropriate range and was not manifestly excessive; the appeal is therefore dismissed and the sentence is affirmed, and it is not appropriate in the circumstances to increase the sentence to the higher figure the Judge had intended to impose.
26 Jun 2018
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the District Court Judge's totality reduction cured the arithmetical error, the sentence of 26 months was the appropriate outcome the Judge intended, and there was no miscarriage of justice or public importance warranting a second appeal.
23 Sept 2016
Appeal dismissed because the only error identified was an arithmetical mistake in the sentence indication (not the sentence imposed), the imposed sentence was within the available range, the appellant declined the statutory opportunity to vacate his plea, and there was no causal link or prejudice arising from the discrepancy warranting substitution of a different sentence.