12 Jul 2005
The magistrate properly applied legal principles, gave appropriate directions (including the Berrada direction), considered all evidence and credibility issues, and was entitled to reject the appellant's account; there was no legal or factual error warranting overturning the conviction.
19 Aug 1998
Because the magistrate's oral reasons did not make clear that he had warned himself of the special danger of acting on uncorroborated complainant evidence in a sexual case and the brief Statement of Findings filed later was too late to cure that defect, the conviction was unsafe and the appeal was allowed and conviction quashed.
30 May 1997
Because the case depended materially on the appellant's integrity and credibility, the magistrate's failure to give sufficient consideration to the appellant's good character as bearing on propensity to commit the offence rendered the conviction unsafe; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
15 May 1997
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the appellate judge was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the identification was correct given material discrepancies, absence of corroborative evidence and unusual features (victim's father present and lack of complaint), creating a lurking doubt rendering the conviction unsafe.
2 Apr 1993
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge made a key factual finding (that the applicant sold at a fraction of value) unsupported by the evidence and failed to evaluate the applicant's good character and age in accordance with the Berrada principles; these flaws undermined the inferences drawn about knowledge and rendered the conviction unsafe, warranting allowance of the appeal.
26 Nov 1992
The magistrate's decision was flawed by improper criticism of the High Court and failure to apply a Berrada direction and to weigh the High Court acquittal and evidence of deterioration; on review the court exercised its discretion to order a proportionate forfeiture, forfeiting 20% of the seized goods and returning 80%.