27 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's arguments lacked a realistic prospect of success: the trial judge's 20-year starting point fell within the Zhang- mandated range, Berkland did not yield a more favourable result for a leading-role offender, and the parity claim did not raise public importance nor show a miscarriage of justice warranting leave.
1 Dec 2022
Aggregate methamphetamine offending quantified at a minimum of 1.633 kg placed principal offender in Zhang band 4 with a 14-year lead starting point; role, additional conspiracy and cocaine matters produced uplifts to a global starting point of 18.5 years for Fakaosilea, adjusted down for personal circumstances, guilty pleas, EM bail credits and a 5% bail uplift to yield final concurrent sentences (Fakaosilea 13 years 2 months; Pelikani 4 years 11 months; Katoa 4 years 9 months; Mataia 5 years 3 months) and no MPI imposed.
18 Dec 2020
Although addiction was a partial driver of offending, the sentencing Judge properly accounted for personal mitigation through merciful discounts and generous guilty‑plea and youth credits; the seriousness, scale and commercial nature of the offending meant the seven year end sentence was within range and not manifestly excessive, and the out‑of‑time application for leave is declined given lack of merit and long delay.
26 Oct 2016
The High Court held the sentencing Judge did not err: the Pentedrone importations and the cannabis/BZP supply were separate, serious operations warranting cumulative assessment, the adopted starting points were within range, the totality reduction and 15% guilty plea discount were appropriate, and the sentence of four years and eight months was not manifestly excessive.
15 Oct 2013
Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced did not raise a point of general or public importance and, given the Court of Appeal's findings and the strength of the Crown case, there was no real risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal properly addressed sentencing and was entitled to increase the sentence.
16 Dec 2011
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Court of Appeal conducted a full review of the sentence and no arguable error of principle has been identified that would justify the Supreme Court repeating that review or overturning the sentencing approach applied.