17 Nov 2023
The respondent's persistent, escalating and intentional dishonest offending over a lengthy period, substantial financial losses and concealment, demonstrated indifference to legal obligations, lack of remorse and high risk of repeating the conduct satisfy the 'most serious of cases' threshold in s 383(1A); a permanent prohibition without leave is necessary to protect the public.
21 Jul 2023
A brief stay was granted because the balance of convenience favored deferring the suspension until the expedited appeal: the appellant accepted liability and offered supervision and training, there were reasonable grounds the appeal could reduce or negate the suspension (risking rendering the appeal nugatory if stay denied), and adequate interim protective measures and an expedited appeal date mitigated public risk.
5 May 2023
The sentencing Judge erred by expressing a presumption that "sexual predators should go to jail" and failing to undertake a discrete analysis whether home detention could achieve denunciation, deterrence, protection and rehabilitation; given the offender's remorse, engagement with treatment, suitability of an electronically monitored address and availability of restrictive conditions, home detention was the least restrictive sentence that could meet sentencing purposes and the imprisonment sentence was substituted with two months' home detention and 12 months' post‑detention conditions.
14 Feb 2023
The Court refused a stay because the Tribunal's detailed findings established a significant risk to the public (appellant assessed as practising at junior student standard with unlikely rehabilitation), supervision did not adequately mitigate that risk, and the balance of convenience and public interest favoured refusing the stay; there was no basis to stay payment of the fine.
21 Jun 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the four month uplift for prior convictions was not manifestly excessive given the appellant's significant history of similar offending and nexus to current offending, and commutation to home detention was inappropriate because of unresolved rehabilitation, prior breach risk and the need to protect the public; the end sentence was within the available range.
11 Aug 2021
Starting from a s 104 starting point of 17 years for this brutal, premeditated murder, the judge applied a 20% reduction to reflect the significant contribution of bipolar mania exacerbated by alcohol and cannabis and the defendant's lack of prior violent convictions, and allowed a two‑year guilty plea credit, resulting in an indicated minimum period of imprisonment of 11.5 years and a life sentence if the guilty plea is maintained.
5 Feb 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing Judge lawfully concluded that appellant's demonstrated inability to comply with electronic monitoring and prior failed home detention made successful home detention unlikely, and that public protection required imprisonment.
16 Mar 2017
The applicant's 18 applications were refused because he failed to discharge the onus to demonstrate that permitting his involvement would not significantly diminish the public protection and deterrence purposes underlying the s299 prohibition: evidence was insufficiently particular (undefined roles, absent governance and safeguards, no contractual job descriptions), and prior findings of unfitness rendered the applications risky; adjournment with leave to reapply on properly amended applications and evidence was ordered.
1 Feb 2017
The interim order was refused because the Court was not satisfied the appeal was sufficiently strong to outweigh the public interest in maintaining cancellation pending appeal; given the Tribunal's findings (credibility determinations) the likely penalty if misconduct findings stand would be lengthy suspension or cancellation and public protection therefore required maintaining cancellation until the appeal hearing on 4 April 2017.
22 Mar 2016
Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds do not raise questions of law of general or public importance and there is no real risk of miscarriage of justice; the District Court correctly applied the Austin Nichols approach, its factual conclusions about sedation were open on the evidence, and any procedural error did not oblige allowance of the appeal.