31 Mar 2022
Conviction quashed because material aspects of the complainant's evidence (deliberate deletion of WhatsApp 'laughing' emojis inconsistent with claimed upset, together with CCTV discrepancies) were not correctly or sufficiently dealt with; those defects meant the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was unsafe.
2 Mar 2021
The out‑of‑time application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused because the asserted grounds are without arguable merit: the trial judge's rulings on the 'case within a case', interventions during cross‑examination, and directions to the jury (including treatment of CCTV and WhatsApp evidence and the complainant's alleged 'blackout' and motive) were proper and did not amount to unfairness warranting appellate interference.
16 Apr 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's identification and core testimony was reasonable, supported by expert evidence and contemporaneous records, and the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of fact or law that would justify interference.
15 Nov 2018
Leave to appeal was granted because there are arguable questions of law concerning the adequacy of standard jury directions in sexual offence trials where the complainant is the sole direct witness, and concerning the proper appellate approach to verdicts that are not logically inconsistent but rest on uncorroborated complainant evidence; it was reasonably arguable that the jury's divergent verdicts resulted in substantial and grave injustice to the applicant.
26 Jul 2016
The judge did not err in refusing leave under section 154 because the post-incident magazine article and DVD were published eight months after the alleged rape and, given the sparse evidence of any ongoing psychological impact, were not shown to be inconsistent with the complainant's account; further, admitting the material would impermissibly invite the jury to infer consent from alleged promiscuity and the circumstances depicted were materially different from the facts of the offence, so the material was not sufficiently relevant to consent to warrant leave.
30 Apr 1993
The court held that the magistrate's direction treating medical bruising as corroboration for Charge 4 was a material irregularity and quashed the conviction on that charge. The court found the use of the cautioned statement in cross-examination was properly confined to credit and did not justify overturning convictions on Charges 1-3, which were therefore upheld. Sentencing was varied: the original four-month terms on the remaining convictions were suspended for two years in view of the appellant's record and personal circumstances.
10 Aug 1988
Leave to appeal (out of time) was refused because the explanation for delay was unsatisfactory and, on an exceptional review of the merits, the proposed grounds lacked substance: the trial judge's directions on uncorroborated evidence and the parallels with the accused's statement were precise, clear and fair and no substantial and plainly arguable ground was demonstrated to justify extending time.