3 Aug 2020
The application for leave to extend time was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk of miscarriage of justice: counsel's conduct was proper, the applicant had adequate time and advice to accept the sentence indication, the Crown case was strong and the factual record supported convictions, and deportation concerns did not establish a miscarriage of justice.
16 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal out of time was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the District Court properly imposed reparation based on the available repair quote and in the absence of evidence then before the Judge demonstrating undue hardship or special circumstances; applications under s38A to cancel or vary reparation must be made to the District Court and the appellant's s38A application was referred accordingly.
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.
21 Sept 2018
The High Court held a 12 month custodial starting point was available for repetitive, controlling breaches of a protection order; although the judge double-counted the EM bail aggravating feature when applying an uplift, that error was immaterial to the outcome; the final sentence of two months community detention and 12 months supervision with conditions and $2,500 emotional harm reparation was within the available range and was upheld.
18 May 2018
Privilege did not attach because appellant was not obtaining professional legal services via the solicitor's office and, in any event, communications were prima facie in furtherance of a dishonest purpose; the evidence established omission to disclose removal of the withdrawal form amounted to deception and there was no honest belief/claim of right; withdrawing $70,000 denied the protected person access to financial resources and therefore constituted psychological abuse under the Domestic Violence Act; reparation order restoring the fund to the family trust was appropriate to restore the sta…
2 May 2017
The reparation order was valid despite the judge not naming the payee because reparation is administered as a fine by the Registrar/Department of Corrections and the person entitled (the owner, Mr Lye) was evident from the trial; and there was no evidence before the Court to support a challenge to the quantified amount of reparation, so the Court would not disturb the figure; appeal dismissed.