15 Jan 2004
The magistrate was entitled to accept the oral admissions and the evidence of PW3 and PW4 despite absence of a written confession; defence declined a voire dire; the admissions were sufficiently reliable to support conviction and there was no demonstrable miscarriage of justice, so the appeal is dismissed.
8 Aug 2002
The Magistrate, best placed to assess credibility, accepted the prosecution witnesses and the unchallenged police‑recorded admission; those findings established the elements of theft beyond reasonable doubt and warranted dismissal of the appeal.
18 Jul 2000
The magistrate properly evaluated witness credibility, accepted prosecution evidence including the appellant's verbal admission as demonstrating realization of guilt, considered the appellant's account and character, and was entitled to convict; the conviction is neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory.
9 Jun 1999
The confession admitted after caution and a trial of the special issue was unexplained and uncontradicted and therefore properly sustained the conviction; there was no basis for the appellate court to interfere so the application for leave was dismissed.
6 Jun 1996
The convictions were upheld because the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and concluded that the applicants' verbal admissions together with their presence and the implements found provided sufficient evidence of going equipped for stealing; inconsistencies in police accounts were peripheral and did not render the verdicts unsafe, and the appellate court will not overturn credibility findings absent clear error.
10 Aug 1995
The Court held that (1) the trial judge gave adequate and careful directions on identification and representation for the 1st applicant rendering his appeal without merit; (2) for the 2nd applicant the summing-up, read as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury on joint enterprise/mens rea and on evaluating the caretaker's evidence; and (3) the confession did not require the Duncan direction because its material parts were inculpatory or neutral; consequently leave to appeal against conviction for both applicants and leave to appeal sentence for the 2nd applicant were refused.
5 May 1987
The applicant's verbal admission to police, viewed against the agreed facts identifying the robbery (location and night), was not merely equivocal and was sufficient to require a defence; the trial judge properly accepted the police evidence and the conviction and five year sentence for armed robbery were justified and within established guidance.
10 Dec 1982
Read in context the trial judge's summing‑up did not mislead the jury; the appellant's final statement admitting assaultive conduct and involvement, together with the surrounding evidence, provided a lawful basis for the jury's inference of intent and the conviction was not unsafe.