8 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed Hessell argument was not properly before the Court of Appeal and this case is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve the general question; moreover the Court of Appeal reasonably concluded the MPI was not manifestly excessive given the prolonged and violent sexual offending, number of victims, risk of reoffending and need to protect the community.
11 Apr 2022
The Court found no material error in the sentencing judge's reasoning: the offending constituted high‑end recklessness with a real risk to officers' safety, the judge properly considered reparation and comparative cases, and the combination of two months' community detention, 150 hours' community work and $5,000 reparation was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate for deterrence and denunciation.
14 Apr 2021
The Judge correctly exercised sentencing discretion: the offending was premeditated, a targeted unanticipated blow to the head of a vulnerable victim causing unconsciousness and injury, and the need for denunciation and deterrence outweighed personal mitigating factors; therefore home detention would be 'much less than the least restrictive outcome' and the 18‑month imprisonment (after plea discount) was within range and must be upheld.
12 Mar 2010
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the applicant's conduct was serious enough to merit life imprisonment; therefore an argument premised on other offenders having been worse did not show any error warranting leave.