28 Aug 2023
The application to withdraw the guilty plea was dismissed because the defendant had received competent legal advice before pleading, did not file an affidavit or provide evidence undermining voluntariness or demonstrating a credible defence, and available reports indicated involvement in the offence, so leave could not be granted.
9 Dec 2021
The District Court did not err: the characterisation of the breaches as intentional and preparatory (grooming) was reasonably inferable from the agreed summaries and the offender's established history and probation assessments; the 13‑month sentence was within range and not manifestly excessive.
29 Nov 2021
Despite the brevity of the District Court Judge's reasons, the High Court found a 12 month starting point was within the available range given the seriousness of the offending (dangerous prolonged driving, property damage, failure to stop and high breath alcohol level); applying a full 25% guilty plea discount reduced the sentence to nine months which was not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
16 Sept 2021
The High Court found the District Court's composite starting point was excessive by two uplifts (past offending uplift and arguably too-large uplift for ancillary offending) and increased guilty plea discount; the s 27 report established a nexus between early life adversity and offending such that greater mitigation was warranted; given appellant's age, primary caregiver status and a suitable monitored address, home detention was a lawful and appropriate substitute for imprisonment; accordingly the sentences of imprisonment were quashed and substituted with three months' home detention with s…
16 Jul 2021
The appeal was allowed in part: although the Judge's starting point and end sentence of imprisonment were not in error, the District Court placed insufficient weight on a more recent, positive PAC report indicating genuine engagement and rehabilitation; accordingly the appropriate disposition was to commute the end sentence to five months electronically monitored home detention to better balance rehabilitation with deterrence and denunciation.
9 Jul 2021
The sentencing judge erred by prioritising deterrence to the exclusion of countervailing sentencing purposes (rehabilitation and keeping a young offender in the community where practicable); given the offender's youth, family support, lack of ammunition or evidence of intended use and approved residence for home detention, the appropriate outcome was to commute the eight month prison term to a five month home detention term less credit for time served.
23 Jun 2021
Given the appellant's persistent breaches of the protection order, prior convictions and demonstrated non‑compliance with sentences and release conditions, a starting point increased to reflect prior offending and a final sentence of six months' imprisonment after guilty plea discount was within the available range; the Judge did not err in principle in imposing imprisonment and correctly declined electronically monitored alternatives.
14 May 2021
The District Court's imposition of intensive supervision with an extensive whereabouts condition and electronic monitoring was unsupportable because the Judge failed to analyse whether standard supervision conditions could address rehabilitative and reintegration needs and whether special conditions met the statutory threshold; accordingly the intensive supervision sentence and its special conditions were quashed and substituted with a 12-month supervision order with tailored conditions.
26 Nov 2020
Because the s 26A pre-sentence report and supplementary information addressed the Department's reservations and the Crown did not oppose, the Court confirmed the substituted sentence of 12 months' home detention to commence 30 November 2020 at the approved address with the specified standard and special conditions; bail is revoked from that date.
18 Nov 2020
No error in the sentencing Judge's approach: any mischaracterisation in the PSR of the lead charge did not materially affect the outcome; EM bail non-compliances were minor and not determinative; the Judge properly declined home detention because of Mr Bishop's leading violent role, negative pre-sentence report and extensive criminal history, and therefore the sentence of 21 months imprisonment was justified.