14 Sept 2023
The three one-month sentences for breach of the same supervision order were offences of the same kind and a connected series; they must be concurrent under ss84–85 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The cumulative imposition producing a six-month total was manifestly excessive and is substituted with concurrent sentences, reducing the total term to four months; the three-month term for assault is upheld.
6 Apr 2022
The High Court held the District Court's end sentence of 12 months imprisonment was within an acceptable range and not manifestly excessive; although the District Court should have considered a discrete EM-bail discount, any reduction would not have rendered the sentence manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
15 Jul 2021
The High Court concluded the sentencing Judge did consider alternatives including home detention and did not err in declining it; given the seriousness and repetition of firearms offending, the ineffectiveness of prior community sentences, and the risk to the family violence victim at the proposed home detention address, imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence and the appeal was dismissed.
12 Mar 2021
The High Court found the District Court's overall starting point of 30 months imprisonment was within range given a 20-month burglary starting point plus justified uplifts for multiple separate and potentially serious dishonesty and bail-supervision breaches; the judge's six-month uplift for prior convictions and six-month guilty plea reduction produced a sentence not manifestly excessive; no mitigation credit for addiction was warranted because offending lacked a direct nexus to methamphetamine dependence; appeal dismissed.
20 Aug 2020
Leave to bring the appeal out of time was granted; the Court found aspects of the District Court's cumulative starting points excessive and that the sentencing Judge had not recorded a totality analysis so the High Court re-evaluated starting points and applied totality. The Court substituted a reduced aggregate sentence totalling 12 months' imprisonment allocated across the offences (drugs, theft re-sentencing, breach of supervision, failure to appear), and held that an uplift for old historical convictions was not warranted.
19 May 2020
The High Court held the sentencing judge did not err: the residential burglary was a proper lead charge, the uplifts for additional burglaries, receiving and drug offending were within discretionary bounds and reflected totality, the judge properly declined discounts for remorse and s27 material, and the resulting sentence of four years' imprisonment (after guilty plea discount) was not manifestly excessive.
31 Oct 2019
Applying Zhang, the appropriate starting point for the methamphetamine supply (16.3 g) was lower than the District Court's starting point; the appellant's role was at the lower end of the lesser category so the court set a global starting point of two years and ten months (drug two years three months plus six months uplift for firearms and one month for breach), then reduced six months for mitigation and applied a 25% guilty plea discount to impose a substituted sentence of one year and nine months' imprisonment; forfeiture orders and a post-release treatment condition were imposed.
2 Oct 2019
The High Court found the District Court made a one month arithmetic error, held the sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive in all circumstances, and substituted the custodial term with a more appropriate least restrictive sentence: three and a half months' home detention to be served under the PAC conditions, and ordered reparation of $13,000 payable at $50 per week.
5 Nov 2018
The High Court found no material error in the District Court's reasoning: the starting point for low-end burglary and the cumulative uplift for distinct offending were within range, the District Court appropriately weighed mitigation including addiction and guilty plea, and the nine month home detention (with concurrent three month terms on other charges and rehabilitative conditions) was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
2 Feb 2016
The Judge did not err in principle in adopting a two year six month starting point for the lead possession for supply offences because the text messages and physical evidence demonstrated quantities and conduct consistent with supply (Terewi category 2); after allowances including a guilty plea discount the end sentence of two years two months was within the permissible range and therefore not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.