12 Dec 2025
Given the appellant's control of the account, the high frequency of transactions over a short period, the need for deterrence in money‑laundering offences, and absence of undue prosecutorial delay or sufficient mitigating factors, the 10‑month immediate custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive and was affirmed.
5 Sept 2025
Appellant failed to prove on the required relative‑likelihood standard that non‑receipt of the fixed penalty notice was not caused by her negligence (she knew mailbox was vulnerable and took no precautions or inquiries); the magistrate's factual findings on that basis were reasonable and must be upheld, so the appeal is dismissed.
23 Apr 2020
A2's conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to analyse and distinguish the statutory defences under s26 and s26AAB and applied an incorrect/overly demanding assessment of 'reasonable diligence' and insufficiently considered evidence favourable to A2 (including mixed results of seized goods and meeting notes); therefore quashing the conviction was just. A1's refusal of costs was overturned because the trial judge lacked positive reasons to deny costs and failed properly to treat A1's cautioned statements and available favourable evidence; A1 is entitled to trial costs but not two…
5 Jun 2013
The trial judge properly accepted the police officer's credible testimony that he observed the appellant driving a forklift and tidying scrap material, the disputed defence evidence was either rejected for lack of credibility or excluded as inadmissible hearsay, and there was no justification to overturn the magistrate's credibility findings; accordingly the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
16 Mar 2010
The compensation order for $75,000 and the attendant order for imprisonment in default were set aside because the magistrate erred in ordering imprisonment in default (contrary to authority and s73(2) construction) and, on rehearing, there was insufficient evidence the appellant had means or reasonably certain prospects of earning to meet the compensation when ordered, particularly given an outstanding $70,000 compensation order; therefore no compensation order should have been made.
18 Feb 2010
The High Court upheld the magistrate's rejection of the appellant's version and, even disregarding the second prosecution witness, accepted the complainant's evidence as sufficient to establish the offence; the appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.