16 Nov 2000
There was more than sufficient primary evidence (credible witness testimony, applicant's role in introducing PW1 to the architect D1, promise of reward and the applicant's own cautioned statement) to permit an irresistible inference that the applicant was a party to the conspiracy; the conviction was therefore safe and the application to appeal was dismissed.
30 Mar 1999
The appeal is allowed because the magistrate failed to address the essential issues of possession and knowledge and improperly relied on an inference from a business registration dated after the raid; that inference was not the only reasonable conclusion, rendering the convictions unsafe and the sentences set aside.
26 Jun 1998
The appeal is dismissed because the learned Magistrate adequately considered the significant discrepancies, accepted the victim PW2's evidence which was corroborated by PW4, and there is no lurking doubt that the conviction for common assault is unsafe.
2 Jun 1998
The conviction was quashed because the learned Magistrate failed to warn himself of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated complainant testimony in a sexual offence and had misconceived or failed to properly address material credibility issues (discrepancy on hand position and timing), such failures undermined the safety of the conviction.
23 Oct 1996
The application was dismissed because the trial judge's findings of credibility and fact were supported by the victim's evidence, the applicant's statement and his testimony, and there was ample evidence to justify the convictions; therefore the appellate court would not overturn the verdicts.
7 Jul 1995
The Court held the trial judge did not breach s.80(2), correctly took account of the applicant's good character, properly rejected the applicant's account and reliance on legal advice, and was entitled to prefer the Crown witnesses and admissions; the evidence proved dishonest appropriation and falsification and the convictions were safe and must be upheld.
6 Sept 1990
Although the trial judge erred in resting convictions for living on earnings on the s.137(2) presumption as triggered by the slapping incident and failed to address each charge separately, the transcript showed cumulative and uncontradicted evidence of the applicant's participation and control that made convictions inevitable; appellate court therefore affirmed convictions under s.129(1) and s.137(1).
23 Jun 1983
The magistrate relied on the police evidence and sketch which misidentified roads and contradicted the official map; the appellant's sketch and evidence, which the magistrate did not inspect, aligned with the official map and would likely have led to a different verdict; because the conviction rested on a misapprehension of material facts the conviction was unsafe and must be set aside.
13 Jun 1980
The conviction was quashed because the appellate court was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant company owned and operated the offending presses at the material times; that doubt undermined the safety of the conviction despite no criticism of the magistrate's conduct.
5 Dec 1978
The appellate court allowed the appeal because the magistrate failed to give proper weight to the appellant's evident physical disability and the improbability of the appellant holding the blade as described, creating a reasonable doubt as to possession; convictions were set aside.