11 Dec 2020
The Court held the Judge correctly categorised the appellant's role as 'significant' and the starting point was appropriate, but erred in aggregating remorse and rehabilitation into a single deduction; treating them separately (5% remorse, 12% rehabilitation) and applying the two‑stage approach produced substituted concurrent sentences of five years' imprisonment for each methamphetamine offence.
12 Dec 2018
The uplift for prior convictions was justified by the appellant's extensive 33-conviction history showing a propensity for violence and the 2018 offences were discrete from 2017 offending; a five-month starting point for the commercial burglary was available, the combined starting points plus a two-month uplift mitigated by 25% for an early plea produced a lawful sentence of approximately seven and a half months' imprisonment which was not manifestly excessive, and disparity with the co-defendant's lenient sentence did not render this sentence unjustifiable.