25 Nov 2021
The High Court held the District Court did not err: the uplift for the petrol thefts was stern but within range, the uplift for prior violent convictions was justified because those convictions were not sufficiently historic and the overall sentence of 17 months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
29 Jul 2021
The sentencing judge erred by failing to apply the Moses v R two-step sequence when calculating and applying guilty plea and personal discounts across multiple discrete offences. Recalculating: adjusted starting point 31 months (2 years for assaults uplifted 6 months for offensive weapon and 1 month for breaches); apply a 20% (5 months) guilty plea discount (restricted to offences pleaded), a 20% (6 months) discount for personal background, mental health and rehabilitation, and a 10% (3 months) discount for extended EM bail; subtract discounts from 31 months to 17 months then add 3 months sub…
24 Jun 2021
The six month imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the available non-custodial alternatives, the appellant's demonstrable engagement with counselling and employment, and the lack of evidence that the proposed home detention address posed an unacceptable safety risk; home detention was preferable but unavailable, therefore the Court quashed the custodial sentence and substituted an 18 month intensive supervision order with rehabilitative conditions and judicial monitoring as the least restrictive effective sentence.
15 Dec 2020
The High Court held the starting point of two years and three months was on the high side but not manifestly excessive given the aggravating features (retrieval of weapons, threats to multiple victims, appellant's capacity to effect the threats and occurrence in another's home); the Judge's uplifts and discounts were appropriate and the end sentence of two years and five months' imprisonment was within the permissible range, so the appeal was dismissed.
7 Feb 2019
The High Court held that the appellant's comment to police, combined with the machete's immediate proximity and his attempt to prevent the search, supported findings of knowledge and assumption of control such that the machete was 'with' him under s 202A(4)(a); therefore the conviction was upheld and no miscarriage of justice occurred.
5 Jul 2018
The District Court sentence was manifestly excessive because the sentencing calculation produced an end sentence greater than could properly be imposed once the offensive weapon charge was convicted and discharged; the appropriate re-sentence is cumulative terms of two months' imprisonment on each imprisonable traffic charge, a 2.5 month uplift for antecedent driving history to a starting point of 8.5 months, reduced by 25% for a guilty plea to a final sentence of six and a half months' imprisonment; conviction and discharge on the offensive weapon charge and the 24 month disqualification are…
21 Oct 2016
Applying R v Fatu band two, the judge set a starting point of five years' imprisonment for supply of 142 grams of methamphetamine, applied a one month uplift for prior similar offending, deducted 37 months for rehabilitation, restrictive bail, assistance, remorse and guilty plea to reach a provisional 24 months' sentence and then converted that to 11 months' home detention as the least restrictive appropriate outcome given substantial mitigation and cooperation despite the presumption of imprisonment.