29 Aug 2022
Appeal allowed because the trial judge's principal factual findings about credibility and the sequence of events were unsafe: multiple important aspects were inconsistent with the CCTV and the evidence showed no adequate basis for the initial police stop under s54, making the conviction for assault in the execution of duty and rejection of self-defence unsustainable.
11 Apr 2022
The court declined to consolidate DCCC115/112/114 because the existing split and timetable were a pragmatic allocation of limited court resources and there was insufficient justification to disturb that arrangement; the court granted consolidation of DCCC113/116 because the issues in the two indictments were sufficiently similar, projected facilities and timetable made joint trial practicable with limited prejudice to defendants, and there was adequate time to reassign counsel and prepare, hence listing the consolidated trial for 14 August to 9 October 2023 (estimated 40 days).
1 Apr 2022
Given the proximity of the separately fixed 30-day trials (less than six months away) and absence of sufficient justification or material change to outweigh prejudice and logistical disruption, the judge exercised case management discretion to refuse consolidation and dismissed the application.
2 Mar 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge lawfully exercised credibility determinations, properly admitted and found the oral statement to be voluntary, and reasonably concluded from witness evidence and CCTV that the appellant was the person apprehended in possession of offensive weapons; the discrepancies and timing gaps did not render the convictions unsafe and the prosecution retained the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt which was satisfied for the upheld counts.
15 Nov 2021
The conviction was quashed because the trial magistrate misidentified the individual in the defence video; the combined video evidence did not show the appellant assaulting the officer and therefore the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
23 Jun 2020
The Court refused leave to appeal because the jury were properly directed and could rationally convict the applicant of drug trafficking based on possession of a significant quantity of controlled drugs while acquitting him of assault; the verdicts were not logically inconsistent and the trial judge's directions on burden, standard and inferences were adequate.
23 Jan 2020
Trial judge correctly found police had authority under s54(1) to stop/detain/search and, given the statutory power and ancillary powers under IGC s40(1), the officers were lawfully executing their duties and entitled to use reasonable force; CCTV and minor inconsistencies did not create reasonable doubt as to the central facts; therefore conviction for resisting a police officer was safe and must be upheld.
13 Sept 2019
The court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings preferring the consistent accounts of the police officers over the civilian witness; the judge reasonably found the assault was deliberate and caused profuse bleeding, and absent irrationality the appellate court will not disturb those findings; therefore the convictions stand.
21 Aug 2019
The court held the sentencing judge did not err: the decision not to grant the full one-third plea reduction was supported by the facts and law, the applicant's reason for late pleas was unrelated to the timing of his guilty pleas, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive (indeed it was not excessive and was relatively lenient).
21 Jun 2019
No reasonable evidence supported a self‑defence direction for D4 so the conviction stood; for D1 the sentencing judge properly applied guidelines, discounted six months for youth plus other reductions, and the aggregate 51‑month sentence was not excessive—leave refused and appeals dismissed.