17 Mar 2026
The magistrate lawfully applied s.109A(1) CPO, obtained and considered a training centre report and rehabilitation prospects, and properly concluded that a training centre order was an appropriate non-imprisonment disposition for an 18‑year‑old with violent antecedents; the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Feb 2026
The court held the appellant's plea was voluntary, informed and unambiguous on the material facts; the admitted facts supported the alternative offence; his complaints lacked objective support and were inconsistent with records and earlier admissions, therefore there were no recognized legal grounds to invalidate the plea or to exercise discretion to permit withdrawal; appeal dismissed.
24 Oct 2025
The trial judge provided adequate reasons and engaged with the principal criticisms of the complainant's evidence; his credibility findings were open on the evidence and the applicant's grounds did not show an arguable case that the conviction was unsafe, therefore leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
11 Apr 2025
On full re‑hearing the court accepted the prosecution witnesses as clear, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and contemporaneous accounts; the trial judge permissibly rejected the appellant's inconsistent accounts and the expert evidence was not probative on the central issues; therefore the evidence proved each of the three offences beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions must be upheld.
19 Feb 2025
On re‑trial the court found the prosecution proved the assault beyond reasonable doubt: the trial judge properly assessed PW1's credibility, discrepancies with the hospital statement were reasonably explained by PW1's state, and CCTV plus medical evidence coherently supported PW1's account; the appellant's recorded interview was inconsistent with objective evidence and rightly rejected, so the conviction and six‑week sentence were upheld.
24 Jan 2025
Because the appellant admitted the material facts in court that met the established criteria for a preventive binding-over order and the magistrate had statutory jurisdiction under Cap.221 s109I and relevant authorities, the magistrate properly exercised discretion and the binding-over order was lawful; the appellant's later factual complaints did not displace her in-court admissions and did not demonstrate error justifying overturning the order.
20 Dec 2024
The court held the sentencing judge did not err: immediate detention was appropriate for assaults on custodial officers; 15 weeks per count was a lenient starting point compared with authorities; ordering 5 weeks of the second count to run consecutively (total 20 weeks) properly reflected distinct victims, injuries and culpability and was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
20 Dec 2024
The court accepted PW1's evidence as credible and corroborated by medical reports and photographs, found the appellant's account inconsistent and implausible, concluded self-defence was not established and that the appellant intentionally assaulted PW1 causing bodily harm; on that basis the conviction was safe beyond reasonable doubt and the seven‑day custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive.
27 Nov 2024
On a re‑hearing of all evidence the court found PW1 credible, his injuries were supported by medical report and photographs and were consistent with the recovered knife; the appellant's alternative account in P4 was implausible; therefore the prosecution proved assault causing bodily harm beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is safe and must be affirmed.
10 Oct 2024
After re‑examination of the evidence including the video, medical records and witness testimony, the appellate judge accepted the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluded the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant pushed PW1 causing injury; the conviction was therefore affirmed.