8 Jan 2015
Conviction was unsafe because the trial judge relied on material that he had not admitted as a confession (thereby improperly using hearsay to support the undercover officer's evidence) and privately relied on an external authority without notifying the parties; those errors undermined the assessment of credibility and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
12 Mar 2004
The High Court held that the magistrate's correction of a factual error was an informal reconsideration, not a statutory review under s.104, and that on the evidence including the caution statements the only irresistible inference was that the appellant acted dishonestly; therefore the conviction was upheld.
12 Apr 1994
Given the overwhelming and consistent circumstantial evidence (respray at the appellant's garage on his instructions, altered chassis and engine numbers matching the wreck he purchased, and payment anomalies), the trial judge was entitled to reject the appellant's account and to draw the irresistible inference that the appellant knew the vehicle was stolen, warranting dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.