11 Dec 2023
The High Court held the starting point of 30 months was appropriate given premeditation and intrusion on private property, the uplifts and totality adjustment were within range and not an error, the offender's addiction had been taken into account and did not warrant an additional discount, and therefore the end sentence of 26 months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
6 Dec 2023
The Court found the guilty plea discount should be 25% (pleas were entered reasonably once charges clarified and after change of counsel) and that a 15% discount for assistance to Police should have been applied; retaining the Judge's 15% personal mitigation discount, the original sentence of 2 years 6 months was manifestly excessive and was set aside and substituted with 1 year 7 months imprisonment.
27 Nov 2023
Although the seven year starting point for the burglary offending may have been marginally high, the offending fell within a range between Pompey and Nguyen warranting a starting point of about six years and six months; with the uplift for firearms and the allowed discounts the net effect would reduce the sentence by only a marginal amount, and the appeal was therefore dismissed because any further reduction would amount to impermissible tinkering.
20 Nov 2023
Correcting the starting point for the dwelling burglary to 18 months and applying a justified 30% uplift for extensive and relevant prior convictions, together with appropriate discounts (20% guilty plea, 5% rehabilitation, 15% personal background) and a three month credit for restrictive bail, yields an end sentence (26.5 months) from which the District Court's 26 month sentence is not manifestly excessive; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
27 Sept 2023
The 20-month starting point for the arson was within range given the multi-storey risk and greater property damage; the District Court's aggregate sentence of 30 months was manifestly excessive because it failed adequately to recognise credit for 220 days on EM bail and for remorse; after adding one month credit for EM bail and a modest remorse allowance the global discounts increased and the substituted sentence of 26 months imprisonment was appropriate.
30 Aug 2023
Having assessed culpability against comparable authorities and the aggravating features (multiple planned, high‑value commercial burglaries, property damage, recidivism) but noting absence of residential confrontations and lesser criminal history than some authorities, the correct overall starting point was six years' imprisonment; the District Court judge's 8.5 year starting point was manifestly excessive; applying the same discounts (20% guilty plea and 8% s27) produced an end sentence of four years and four months which replaces the original six year sentence.
10 Aug 2023
The Court held the sentencing Judge did not err: the starting point and totality adjustments were within range, the Judge correctly applied a 15% reduction for personal mitigating factors and was entitled to decline a separate youth discount or additional credit for early rehabilitative steps; the overall sentence of five years and five months was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
26 Jul 2023
Court found defendant guilty of 16 of 21 charges, concluded s66 liability applied on multiple charges including some as principal, set a starting point of 11 years for the three arson with danger to life charges and a global starting point of 11 years 10 months, applied a 25% total reduction (20% personal mitigation + 5% rehabilitation) producing an end sentence of 8 years 10 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently across counts and declined to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.
25 Jul 2023
Having found the defendant an active participant in large-scale, violent prison arson and related offending, the Court set a starting point of 11 years for the arson with danger to life charges, adjusted uplift to achieve parity with co-defendants to a global starting point of 11 years 9 months, allowed a 10% personal mitigation discount (rounded to 15 months) producing an end global sentence of 10 years 6 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently on all counts, and declined to impose a minimum period of imprisonment; the sentence was driven by scale, risk to life, victim impact and role…
5 Jul 2023
The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the District Court erred in not discounting the sentence for causative background factors; applied a 10% discount for those factors and rehabilitation, resulting in an adjusted custodial equivalent of 21 months which made the appellant eligible for home detention; converted the sentence to 11 months' home detention with specified conditions and reparation orders because the purposes of sentencing could be met without imprisonment.