22 Nov 2023
The extension of time was declined because the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with explicit Court directions and provided no reasonable explanation or particularised grounds for the delay; as a consequence the bail application fell away and was declined.
21 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the timing discrepancy arising from the s 9 statement raised essentially a factual credibility issue that did not create a real risk of miscarriage given the broader circumstantial evidence supporting conviction; the sentence and uplift were orthodox and not manifestly excessive, and bail was consequently refused.
6 Jul 2022
The Court granted the recall because Corrections' administrative error caused the applicant to serve four weeks of home detention after bail had been granted and after the appeal was heard, creating a material injustice; accordingly the Court recalled its prior judgment and reduced the substituted community work from 250 hours to 100 hours while leaving the 12 months' supervision intact.
18 Oct 2021
Bail pending appeal was declined because the applicant failed to discharge the reversed onus: the forensic reports, while they may raise doubts, are not yet evidence before the Court nor shown to be very strong or compelling grounds that would justify prejudging the appeal; adequate in-custody facilities and temporary release options mitigate preparation concerns and public safety risks were modest but did not outweigh the presumption of finality of a jury verdict pending appeal.
13 May 2021
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the District Court's starting point placed the offending at the upper end of band one/bottom of band two under R v AM and was not manifestly excessive given the aggravating features (persistence, breach of trust, victim vulnerability, filming and serious harm); the uplift for additional objectionable publications was modestly lenient but did not render the overall sentence wrong; the sentencing discounts were generous and properly applied; bail pending any Court of Appeal leave application was continued.
14 Dec 2020
The sentencing Judge erred by indicating leave to apply for home detention for a 30 month imprisonment term because statutory law permits conversion to home detention only for sentences of 24 months or less; the s27 report was admitted as fresh evidence and warranted a further 15% discount for diminished culpability due to trauma and severe addiction, reducing the effective custodial starting point to 24 months which converts to 12 months home detention, and after credit for time served and restrictive bail the appropriate concurrent sentences are three months home detention at the Grace Foun…
24 Apr 2020
Bail pending the sentence appeal was granted because there was a real risk the appellant's sentence appeal would be rendered nugatory absent bail given the issue whether he could lawfully be required to serve more than 12 months' home detention and he had already served 12 months; the application for leave to appeal the habeas corpus decision was dismissed because no exceptional circumstances existed and the issues are classically for appeal.
25 Mar 2020
Bail was refused because it was not in the interests of justice: the applicant is a sentenced prisoner with a demonstrated history of non-compliance with sentences and bail, there is a real risk he would not comply with bail conditions, and the justifications relied on (access to instructions, health, Covid-19, offers to assist or repay tax) could be managed without release or were insufficient to outweigh the risks; moreover his appeal and recall were dismissed.
24 Oct 2018
Habeas corpus is not the correct procedure to relitigate or re‑examine a conviction of a court of competent jurisdiction or to obtain bail pending appeal; prior refusals under substantially the same grounds preclude further habeas applications under s15, and therefore the applicant's habeas corpus application is dismissed and properly dealt with on the papers.
16 Jun 2017
Applying s 14 of the Bail Act 2000 and the applicable authorities, the Court concluded the appellant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or sufficiently strong prospects of success on appeal; there was no prima facie error in the sentencing judge's factual findings or sentencing range, therefore bail pending appeal was refused.