Results.
7 judgments found.
|
|
|
| March 1997 |
|
|
Sentencing discretion must be reasoned; burglary is serious and, on review, a three-year term with hard labour was imposed.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing — Sentencer must give reasons — Sentencing discretion reviewable — Burglary/housebreaking serious; starting point six years with hard labour — Mitigating and aggravating factors to adjust sentence — Enhancement on review to three years
|
31 March 1997 |
|
Conviction based on weak nighttime identification and inadmissible hearsay was unsafe; prosecution must disprove an alibi.
-
Criminal law — alibi — prosecution must disprove alibi; Evidence — hearsay from co‑accused inadmissible to prove guilt; Identification — Turnbull warnings and parade evidence necessary where identification is central; Visual identification at night — caution required
|
26 March 1997 |
|
Equivocal plea required charge amendment under s151; magistrate rightly withheld discharge; original sentence was excessive and reduced.
-
Criminal procedure — equivocal plea — duty to amend charge under section 151 — withholding consent to discharge under section 81 — conviction under section 311 — sentencing on withdrawn/lesser included offence unlawful — manifestly excessive sentence reduced
|
16 March 1997 |
|
Daytime breaking and entering is housebreaking, not burglary; conviction amended and sentence confirmed.
-
Criminal law — Burglary is a nocturnal offence; daytime breaking and entering constitutes housebreaking; amendment of charge in confirmation proceedings to regularise offence
|
15 March 1997 |
|
Appellate court reduced an excessive two-year sentence for minor unlawful wounding, emphasizing consideration of mitigation for unrepresented accused.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing — Obligation to consider mitigating factors for unrepresented accused; Unlawful wounding — severity of injury and guilty plea relevant to sentence; Excessive sentence reduced
|
13 March 1997 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction set aside because the trial court failed to consider the accused's denial and corroborative exculpatory evidence.
-
Criminal law — Cheating using specimen banknote; evidential treatment of accused’s caution statements and denials; admissibility and weight of self-serving statements; reasonable doubt; appellate intervention where trial court fails to consider exculpatory evidence
|
13 March 1997 |
|
A three-year sentence for theft was manifestly excessive; reduced to 12 months where property was recovered and defendant pleaded guilty.
-
Criminal law — Theft — Sentence — Manifestly excessive sentence — Plea of guilty and recovery of stolen property as mitigating factors — Duty of trial court to give reasons for sentence — Substitution of sentence on review
|
13 March 1997 |