22 Nov 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the judge did not err: the starting point was not excessive, the guilty plea discount and additional reductions were not inadequate, a totality adjustment was made and the cumulative effective sentence of 26 months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
7 Dec 2021
Section 18 of the Sentencing Act 2002 precluded the sentencing Judge from applying any uplift to reflect the lesser aggravated injuring charge because the offender was under 18 at the time; the correct standalone starting point for the aggravated wounding was eight years, and applying appropriate discounts produced a substituted sentence of two years seven months imprisonment; the concurrent sentence on the lesser charge was quashed and the offender convicted and discharged on that count.
5 May 2021
The one year uplift for prior convictions was not disproportionate given the appellant's extensive recidivist domestic violence history; the 15% global discount for mitigating factors was within range notwithstanding arguments for a larger reduction; the end sentence of 10 years 4 months imprisonment with a 5 year MPI is not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Mar 2021
Leave for a second appeal is declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk of miscarriage of justice: the trial Judge's admissions rulings on hearsay and propensity were within legal bounds, the inferences from DNA, stolen property, CCTV and modus operandi were permissible and sufficient to support convictions, and the sentence (including uplift for prior offending and minimum period) was not manifestly excessive.
24 Nov 2020
The High Court held the District Court's starting point of 7.5 years was too high given limited premeditation; a starting point of six years for the aggravated robbery with a six month uplift for the attempted aggravated robbery (total 6.5 years) was appropriate; allowed discounts of 15% (guilty pleas), 10% (youth) and 10% (cultural factors) yielding a total discount of 35%; substituted end sentence is four years and two months' imprisonment and original five year sentence set aside.
12 Nov 2019
Given the appellant's escalating sexual offending, high assessed risk of reoffending, lack of insight and prior noncompliance with parole, preventive detention was necessary and not manifestly excessive; advanced age did not outweigh the demonstrated risk and an extended supervision order was unlikely to provide adequate protection; extension of time to appeal granted due to minimal delay and the merits.
7 Sept 2018
The High Court held there was no departure from the sentence indication because the Judge had explicitly left electronic-based sentences open pending a pre-sentence report and the report contained new adverse material recommending custody; there was no miscarriage of justice as to conviction. However the custodial sentence was manifestly excessive because the sentencing Judge placed undue weight on deterrence and protection versus the statutory mandate to impose the least restrictive appropriate sentence and failed adequately to weigh that an electronically monitored sentence would protect th…
8 Aug 2017
The appeal was allowed: the Judge was entitled to proceed without an updated pre-sentence report given the prior report and the offender's non-compliance, but the cumulative sentencing was excessive; applying the totality principle and a Hessell plea reduction, the cumulative sentences were set aside and the end sentence was reduced to eight months' imprisonment by making all sentences concurrent (disqualification order to remain).
26 May 2016
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because, on the facts (high EBA level, grossly excessive speed, and two prior EBA convictions) and relevant authorities, a five year disqualification cannot be said to be manifestly excessive; an extension of time to file the application was granted due to counsel error.
26 Apr 2016
Because the sentencing indication under s116(2) was binding and the Judge properly treated the indecent assault as peripheral to a global starting point, there was no error of principle or manifest excess in maintaining the indicated starting point and reducing for mitigation to the imposed sentence; therefore the appeal is dismissed.