10 Sept 2025
PW3 and PW4’s evidence of complaints made approximately six years after the alleged offences did not satisfy the required ‘recent’ element and were improperly treated and directed to the jury as recent complaint evidence; that misdirection was a material irregularity that could not be cured and rendered the convictions unsafe, warranting quashing and setting aside of sentence.
21 May 2004
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's rejection of the appellant's account and the inferences drawn were within the range of reasonable evaluations of credibility and fact; no legal error or irrationality was shown, the appellant failed to establish a lurking doubt sufficient to disturb the conviction, and the section 24 presumption was not determinative on this appeal.
28 Jul 1988
Section 9 affirmation was admissible and properly afforded statutory presumptions even though the affiant gave oral evidence; the prosecution proved subsistence and ownership of copyright; the appellant failed to discharge the statutory burden under section 5 because he did not make reasonable inquiries of his artwork producer and the magistrate permissibly inferred deliberate shutdown of inquiry (willful blindness) or at least that he had reason to believe the copies were infringing, therefore convictions under sections 5(1) and 5(2) must stand.
5 Nov 1979
Allowing cross-examination based on a defendant's police statement that has not been proved in evidence was an error; because the magistrate may have relied on answers given to such questions, the conviction could not be regarded as safe and was therefore quashed.
1 Oct 1979
Leave to appeal was refused because, despite some deficiencies in directions concerning corroboration from distress and complaint, there was independent and significant evidence corroborating lack of consent (commotion, doctor's attempt to prevent entry, nakedness, injection into the vulva) and the trial judge properly exercised discretion in treating the caretaker as hostile, so the jury's verdict was safe and sentence appropriate.
20 Jul 1970
The magistrate erred as a matter of law in treating the appellant's prior written statement as substantive evidence that the complainant had identified him; such a statement, not adduced by the prosecution, could only impeach the appellant's oral evidence and could not be substituted to contradict the complainant's in-court denial of identification. Consequently the finding of guilt could not stand.
The appeal was allowed because the key prosecution witness was not shown to be genuinely hostile (he simply could not remember) and his prior statement in Chinese was inadmissible in the circumstances without proper translation and reliability; consequently the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.