24 Jun 2021
The High Court held the District Court did not err in principle by applying a custodial sentence given repeated driving while disqualified and prior opportunities and the unsuitability of available community sanctions; however new evidence of changed attitude and rehabilitation prospects warranted reducing the concurrent custody terms from 13 months and two weeks to nine months.
7 Apr 2020
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Court's refusal to grant leave under s 80I because the appellant was an unsuitable candidate for home detention due to an extensive history of non-compliance, offending while on bail and while subject to supervision, the particularly dangerous and prolonged driving offending, lack of a suitable address, and absence of confidence in rehabilitation or compliance; no error was shown in the imposed 19 month sentence.
13 Mar 2020
Court accepted most District Court starting points were within range but found the 12-month starting point for non-mail theft excessive and reduced it to nine months; rejected credit for asserted methamphetamine addiction absent causal evidence; applied totality principle to reduce aggregated starting point and, applying same uplifts and discounts as trial Judge, reduced end sentence from 3 years 2 months to 2 years 11 months imprisonment while upholding reparation orders and concurrent sentencing on remaining charges.
21 May 2019
Given the appellant's pattern of repeated and recent disqualified driving convictions, the starting point and uplifts imposed by the District Court were within established sentencing ranges; the two month uplift for curfew breach and two months for re‑sentencing on failure to complete community work were supported by precedent and the circumstances; the additional cumulative two month term for possession of 4.1 g methamphetamine did not render the total sentence manifestly excessive; therefore the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Court sentences.
26 Apr 2018
The re-sentence was manifestly excessive because the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the unserved portion of the original community-based sentence under s69I(4), applied improper discounts and did not ensure proportionality; recalculation applying correct principles, appropriate guilty plea discount and aggregation for new offending yields a substituted sentence of 23 months imprisonment which could have been imposed initially and therefore replaces the 27 month sentence.
13 Oct 2016
The High Court concluded the District Court's starting point of two years' imprisonment (resulting in a total sentence of two years and two months) was not manifestly excessive given the deliberate, premeditated dishonesty, substantial combined loss ($32,000), breaches of trust and the appellant's significant history of dishonesty; further, the sentencing judge properly declined additional credit for remorse or likely reparation because remorse was not demonstrated as genuine and reparation was unlikely to be made.