Results.
14 judgments found.
|
|
|
| August 2000 |
|
|
Court reduced an excessive theft sentence to three years, considering illness and sentencing principles.
-
Criminal law — Theft (s.278 Penal Code) — Sentence review — Excessive sentence — Maximum sentence reserved for worst instances — Mitigation: serious illness (tuberculosis) — Domestic hardships generally not mitigating — Economic context affects monetary thresholds for sentencing
|
31 August 2000 |
|
High Court reduced excessive sentences on review, stressing prompt transmission under section 15 and the mitigating effect of a guilty plea.
-
Criminal procedure — High Court review powers (Courts Act ss.25–26; Crim. Proc. & Evid
-
Code s.362) — Confirmation of sentences under s.15 — Duty of prompt transmission — Timely review required — Guilty plea reduces sentence — Sentencing moderation where only aggravation is concerted action
|
31 August 2000 |
|
|
28 August 2000 |
|
Interlocutory mandatory injunction refused where contract terms and facts are disputed and damages are adequate.
-
Contract for sale of goods — interlocutory mandatory injunction — high threshold: unusually strong case and high degree of assurance — disputed facts on affidavits — equity/clean hands — specific performance not appropriate — damages adequate.
|
24 August 2000 |
|
Turquand rule and apparent authority defeated an injunction where a family company failed to observe corporate formalities.
-
Company law — director’s apparent authority — Turquand rule — enforcement of security — interlocutory injunction — non‑compliance with Companies Act formalities.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
High Court confirmed a 42‑month burglary sentence, applying a six‑year starting point and warning against registrar delays.
-
Criminal law — Burglary — Sentencing: six‑year starting point; adjust for aggravating/mitigating factors; first offender mitigation; confirmation of 42‑month sentence; Registrar delays and limits under s.15(4) Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code; Prison Act remission considerations
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Court confirmed sentence despite plea and sentencing errors because delay made altering it unjust.
-
Criminal procedure — Plea-taking irregularity — Counts must be read separately and pleas recorded per count; Curable defects (Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code ss 353, 362)
-
Sentencing — Fines for compound felony generally inappropriate; default imprisonment limits (s.29 amendment) capped at three months for fines K100–K1000
-
Review — undue delay may bar modification of sentence
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Delay in transmitting records prevented enhancement of an unduly lenient sentence on High Court review.
-
Criminal procedure — Review of subordinate courts — High Court powers under Courts Act ss.25–26 and Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code ss.15, 362 — Mandatory transmission and timeous review — Enhancement of sentence on review — Effect of delay where sentence already served
|
21 August 2000 |
|
High Court confirms an 18‑month theft sentence, stressing timely review and registrar duties regarding prison rebate.
-
Criminal procedure — Review of subordinate-court sentences (Courts Act s26; Crim. Proc. & Ev
-
Code s362) — Mandatory confirmation (s15) — Registrar's duty and timeliness — Prison rebate (Prison Act s107) — Sentencing principles: guilty plea, first offender, value of stolen property
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Court set aside default judgment against a non-existent company; third party lacked standing under Order 12 but had interest under Practice Note 12/1/11.
-
Civil procedure — Order 12 Rules 6 and 8 — leave to give notice of intention to defend — limited to a defendant; Practice Note 12/1/11 — setting aside default judgments obtained against non-existent companies; locus standi of interested third parties; costs.
|
15 August 2000 |
|
Detention beyond 48 hours without charge violates the Constitution; court ordered release on bail with conditions.
-
Constitutional law — right to be brought before a court within 48 hours (s.42(2)(b)) — habeas corpus — prolonged detention unlawful — administrative difficulty not a defence — factors for balancing 'interest of justice' and liberty — bail as remedy
|
8 August 2000 |
|
A 15-month sentence for a young, first-time non-violent burglar was appropriate; first offenders should not be used mainly for general deterrence.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing — Breaking into a building and committing a felony (s.311 Penal Code) — Mitigating factors: youth, first offender, guilty plea, low value of theft — Role of general deterrence and frequency of offence in sentencing
|
3 August 2000 |
|
On review the defendant's sentence for breaking and entering with theft was reduced due to doubtful evidence, minor trespass, and statutory detention limits.
-
Criminal law — Breaking into a building and committing a felony (s.311 Penal Code) — Sentencing considerations: extent of trespass, violence or damage, and value/quantity of property stolen — Evidence credibility and overstatement of value — Review procedures and s.15(4) Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code — Warrant of commitment and limits on detention pending confirmation
|
3 August 2000 |
|
Court confirms eight-month sentence for theft by servant, stressing guideline application and timeliness of review given remission.
-
Criminal law — Sentencing and review — Theft by servant (s.286 Penal Code) — Role of breach of trust — Application of sentencing guidelines — Effect of statutory remission (s.107 Prison Act) on review timeliness
|
3 August 2000 |