8 Apr 2022
The original sentence of two years and one day's imprisonment was manifestly excessive on the facts; a proportionate and appropriate disposal is substitution with nine months' home detention to be served on the conditions specified in the Provision of Advice to Courts report of 4 February 2022.
27 Sept 2019
The Court concluded the 21 month prison sentence was excessive in the circumstances and that an eight month home detention order with specified standard and special conditions better served the purposes of sentencing, including rehabilitation and protection, and therefore substituted that sentence for imprisonment.
9 May 2018
The appeal was allowed by consent because the sentencing judge erred by having regard to a cancelled prison sentence rather than the substituted home detention sentence and by failing to account for time spent in custody awaiting re-sentence; the correct sentence on re-sentence was 16 months imprisonment and the 20 month sentence was quashed and replaced accordingly.
23 Nov 2017
The District Court judge erred by adopting the maximum 12‑month starting point because he disregarded materially relevant mitigating circumstances (the partner's consent and the contextual reasons for the breach), misstated the appellant's prior history as involving the same kind of prior non‑association breaches, and wrongly concluded the maximum was the only effective deterrent; a six‑month starting point with a 20% guilty plea discount (resulting in four months and three weeks imprisonment) was appropriate, and leave to appeal out of time was granted.
27 Oct 2015
The Court allowed the appeals in part, quashed the sentences for obtaining by deception and substituted shorter custodial terms to be served concurrently while upholding the other concurrent sentences.