|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| 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under section 151 – withholding consent to discharge under section 81 – conviction under section 311 – sentencing on withdrawn/lesser included offence unlawful – manifestly excessive sentence reduced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 |