27 Jul 2021
Given the significant emotional harm, breach of trust and two separate incidents of offending, the District Court's starting point of 4.5 years was within range; the reductions for guilty plea, remorse and good character were appropriate and not an improper double count; the overall end sentence of two and a half years imprisonment with $5,000 reparation was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Mar 2021
Given the appellant's inconsistent statements, lack of sustained reparation, extensive history of dishonesty and high risk of reoffending, the sentencing Judge was entitled to refuse remorse credit and to impose imprisonment; the sentence imposed was within range and not manifestly excessive.
17 Dec 2019
The starting point of two years and two months, while at the higher end, was within an appropriate range given the offending taken as a whole (two residential burglaries, return to the scene with burglary tools, loss of items of financial and sentimental value, and offending while on intensive supervision), limited remorse credit did not alter the outcome, and the reparation order was not undue; appeal dismissed.
23 Aug 2019
Having considered comparable authorities and the facts (extreme violence, multiple stab wounds to vulnerable areas, grossly disproportionate force and limited mitigation from history of abuse), the appropriate starting point was 4 years 9 months' imprisonment; after deductions of four months for personal mitigation (good character/history) and two months for lack of local support, final sentence imposed was 4 years 3 months' imprisonment for manslaughter.
12 Aug 2019
The High Court held that the sentencing Judge's starting points and adjustments were within range, the totality principle was properly applied in reducing an aggregate 36 month starting point to 30 months, the nine month uplift for extensive prior dishonesty offending was justified for deterrence and protection, and refusal to grant additional remorse credit was justified given the late, self‑focused and unconvincing apologies; therefore no error requiring substitution of sentence was shown and the appeal was dismissed.
20 Dec 2018
On appeal the Court found the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge was excessive for the appellant's role; set a reduced starting point of six years, allowed appropriate uplifts for additional offending and for conduct on bail, applied defined discounts (modest remorse 5%, guilty plea 15%, youth 20% as relevant in calculation) and substituted an aggregate sentence of four years and eleven months imprisonment; the Court quashed the imposed 50% MPI as unnecessary and noted the objectionable material in a VIS was not relied on for sentencing.
8 Nov 2018
The Court held the Judge did not err in principle or outcome: the starting points of 30 months (lead offender) and 20 months (co‑offender) were within the available range given deliberate, repetitive and premeditated deception of INZ and exploitation of vulnerable workers; workers who suffered unpaid wages or loss of entitlement constitute victims for sentencing and reparation purposes because unpaid wages are a loss of property; limited discounts for remorse and good character were appropriate; leave to appeal out of time for Mr Balajadia was granted and both appeals against sentence were di…
16 May 2018
Although the starting point was adjusted to 24 months imprisonment (within band two), the overall exercise of discretion produced eight months' home detention which is within the available range and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
20 Mar 2018
Judge erred by failing to give separate discounts for genuine remorse and cooperation; on reassessment a 5% discount for remorse and 15% for cooperation (in addition to a 25% early guilty plea discount) were appropriate, and a proper starting point for the aggregate offending was higher than the District Court's starting point; after recalculation the appropriate global sentence is 33 months' imprisonment, therefore the appeal is allowed, District Court sentences quashed and new concurrent sentences of two years and nine months imposed.
19 May 2017
Starting point of six years' imprisonment was appropriate for the extremely high culpability (multiple aggravating factors); a six month uplift for personal aggravation produced 6.5 years, a 15% reduction for a timely guilty plea and a six month credit for genuine remorse resulted in an effective sentence of five years' imprisonment; no minimum period of imprisonment was imposed; disqualification for five years from release was necessary for community protection.