24 Oct 2023
The sentencing Judge's imposition of nine months' supervision, with standard and special conditions and backdating of the one year and one day disqualification under s85, was within judicial discretion and not manifestly excessive; no error of law or principle was shown on rehearing, and the appellant's factual assertions did not undermine the sentence.
8 Aug 2023
The District Court failed to demonstrate it had applied the statutory thresholds for imposing a supervision sentence under s46 and for imposing the special rehabilitative condition under ss50 and 52 (significant risk of further offending and inadequacy of standard conditions); the supervision sentence was not shown to be the least restrictive appropriate outcome and therefore must be quashed and substituted with an order to come up for sentence if called upon within six months.
7 May 2021
Appellant received a fair trial. Counsel had reasonably prepared and had not been instructed to produce the video pre-trial; the cellphone recording, when viewed, was neither fresh nor cogent and did not exonerate appellant (audio showed appellant verbally aggressive and did not exclude appellant striking the victim); restricted access to medication did not impair appellant's ability to give coherent evidence; sentence was not manifestly excessive. Therefore leave to adduce fresh evidence was refused and both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
10 Aug 2020
The Court held the judge did not err in imposing the maximum 12-month supervision because the offender's alcohol dependency, recidivism and community protection needs justified the upper limit; however the judge erred by failing to specify 'special reasons' for not replacing mandatory disqualification, so the indefinite disqualification was quashed and replaced with an alcohol interlock order under s65AC.
20 Aug 2019
The High Court upheld the District Court's refusal to discharge the appellant without conviction because the identified consequences were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offending; the nine-month supervision sentence was affirmed as appropriate, but the special condition requiring family/relationship counselling was unlawful and quashed because there was no finding of a significant risk of further offending.
16 Aug 2019
Leave to bring a second appeal is refused because the applicant's guilty plea was entered voluntarily with full understanding as shown by the District Court transcript, no exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated, and the appeal does not raise any matter of general or public importance.
2 Jul 2019
The High Court held the offending was mid‑range indecent assault with persistent vulgar conduct and contact; the s107 threshold was not met because the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence, so the conviction stands; however the 12‑month supervision sentence was excessive and reduced to six months, with reparation of $1,500 upheld.
1 Oct 2018
The appellate court held there was no error of law: the sentencing Judge had regard to s 46 and properly exercised discretion to impose 12 months supervision to manage the clear and continued risk of drink-driving; the sentence was within statutory limits and not manifestly excessive.