21 Mar 2023
The Court concluded the home detention sentences were inappropriate for the offending and substituted a six month supervision sentence with specified residence and treatment conditions as the appropriate and proportionate disposition.
14 Feb 2023
The Court refused a stay because the Tribunal's detailed findings established a significant risk to the public (appellant assessed as practising at junior student standard with unlikely rehabilitation), supervision did not adequately mitigate that risk, and the balance of convenience and public interest favoured refusing the stay; there was no basis to stay payment of the fine.
10 May 2022
The Court held that the overall sentence of three months' community detention and six months' supervision was within range and not an error, but the 13 month disqualification was disproportionate given the historic nature of earlier convictions and rehabilitative considerations; the disqualification was reduced to 12 months to achieve proportionality while upholding road safety objectives.
23 Jul 2021
The Court held the District Court erred in adopting an eight month imprisonment starting point which was manifestly excessive for these facts; appropriate starting point was four months' imprisonment, with a 10% credit for the appellant's background and rehabilitation efforts, and, applying the principle of least restrictive outcome, the appropriate substituted sentence is 12 months' supervision plus 250 hours' community work with special conditions (no alcohol/illicit drugs, no contact with complainant or immediate family, attend drug/alcohol rehabilitation and complete SAFE programme).
5 Mar 2021
The District Court erred in imposing 12 months' intensive supervision because Judge Menzies did not identify or establish the s54C requirements (conditions needed for longer than 12 months or conditions unavailable under supervision); lacking jurisdiction to impose intensive supervision, the appropriate replacement is 12 months' supervision on the same conditions.
22 Dec 2020
The trial judge did not reverse the onus of proof; his rejection of the appellant's account as inconsistent with CCTV and implausible explanations was open on the evidence and the complainant's evidence that she saw the top of the appellant's penis was credible and sufficient to convict for an indecent act within view of a public place. On sentence, given the appellant's advanced age, lack of relevant offending history and the relatively minor nature of the conduct, the community detention component was manifestly excessive and was quashed while supervision and the $500 emotional harm payment…
17 Dec 2020
The initial imposition of special conditions on a six month sentence of community detention was unlawful because s 69E does not permit additional conditions; under s 180 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 the sentence was corrected by imposing six months supervision (allowing the special conditions) and reducing the community detention term by one month to account for the increased supervision obligations.
4 Jun 2020
Court adopted a starting point of 10 months imprisonment to reflect aggravating features, applied a one month uplift because the offending occurred while on bail (resulting in 11 months), then applied deductions totalling nine months (five months for time on EM bail and custody, one month for personal background in the s27 report, and three months for guilty plea) and, having regard to the delay and overall circumstances, imposed non‑custodial dispositions of six months supervision and 80 hours community work on each charge.
15 Oct 2019
The Court concluded the home detention sentence was inappropriate and allowed the appeal, quashing the home detention and imposing 250 hours of community work and 12 months' supervision with the supervision conditions set out in the pre‑sentence report.
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.