6 Oct 2023
The 15% uplift and resultant end sentence were within the available range and not manifestly excessive; the judge's methodology complied with Moses; Reweti does not justify reduction where home detention is not available and the uplift was proportionate.
29 May 2023
The District Court judge miscalculated the remaining custodial time by deducting time served from the full 22 month term instead of calculating actual custodial time under Parole Act s86 (half of 22 months = 11 months) then deducting time already served; applying the orthodox practice of imposing a home detention term equivalent to the actual custodial time left yields a substituted sentence of four months' home detention, and the appeal is allowed to correct that error.
5 May 2023
The High Court held the District Court did not fundamentally err in approach and correctly treated the sentences as concurrent, but the combined uplifts for multiple dishonesty offences were disproportionate to the lead offence; after recognising the Judge had applied a totality reduction the Court substituted a reduced end sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment for the lead burglary charge because a four-month reduction was warranted and not mere tinkering.
28 Mar 2023
The sentencing Judge plainly intended discounts of 25% for guilty plea and 30% for matters in the s27 report but did not intend to apply the discussed 5% for time served; the end sentence as imposed (2 years 5 months) reflected a mathematical error and was more severe than the judge's intended 55% discount from a 48‑month starting point; under authority in Ferris‑Bromley the court corrected the error and substituted a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment, declining any additional EM bail discount because of the breach.
10 Mar 2023
The judge correctly limited discount for background because causative contribution was not established and the offending was particularly serious; the judge erred in applying the articulated percentage discounts to the plea‑adjusted sentence rather than the starting point under Moses, producing a sentence three months greater than intended — the Court corrects the calculation and substitutes a sentence of 10 years 5 months with an MPI of 5 years 2 months.
11 May 2022
The Court held the jury verdict was not unreasonable because, viewed in totality, the phone communications and prison staff evidence provided a sufficient evidential foundation for a reasonable jury to conclude Mr Tito expected a non-contact visit and arranged for the appellant and his visitor to act as a conduit, and the sentencing judge correctly treated the 13.92 g found in the cap as the quantity involved in the conspiracy while applying appropriate discounts for mitigation and totality.
26 Nov 2021
The High Court had jurisdiction under s 180 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to correct the sentencing error. Remand time of approximately 3.5 months must be credited; applying the established approach (double the remand period deducted from the imprisonment end sentence then halve to convert to home detention) produced a correct electronically monitored home detention term of 7.9 months, replacing the 11 months previously imposed.
24 Nov 2021
The appeal is dismissed: although the Judge erred in calculating the recall-period credit (recall began from the interim recall order) that error was effectively offset by the Judge's incorrect application of uplift for prior convictions at the starting point; sentencing remained within an appropriate range and is not excessive. Leave to apply for home detention was not available because the offender was serving a recalled sentence and statutory provisions precluded substituting home detention for imprisonment in those circumstances.
29 Mar 2021
Although an initial warrant contained an error and the applicant was given incorrect information, the detention was at all times authorised by a corrected warrant reflecting the sentencing court's intention; the applicant's BORA claims were misconceived and the proper remedy to challenge the sentence was an appeal, so the judicial review application is dismissed.
6 Nov 2020
The two and a half year driving disqualification was unlawful because statutory minimum disqualifications required six months for failing to stop and at least six months for reckless driving that must be made cumulative under s 52A(6), producing a 12 month disqualification; the appellate court quashed the 2.5 year disqualification and substituted 12 months.