25 May 2022
The trial judge properly evaluated competing accounts, accepted PW1’s evidence and rejected the defence after assessing credibility and inconsistencies; those findings were not plainly wrong and therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
17 Mar 2017
The magistrate's conclusion that a collision occurred was the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence (sound, damage to ambulance mirror, measurements, the appellant's conduct and a witness feeling the ambulance shake), so the conviction for careless driving was properly upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
30 Aug 2013
The conviction was quashed because the magistrate did not give adequate consideration to the possibility of accidental touching and relied on flawed or overstated inferences, rendering the conviction unsafe.
13 Sept 2012
The Magistrate's rejection of the police officer's evidence that the incident was reported as a 'brushing' without treating it as potentially true under the criminal standard meant the conviction was unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction and sentence quashed.
26 Apr 2001
The appellate court upheld the magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witness's account and concluded that the magistrate properly applied common sense in finding the tissue was crumpled and that the conviction was supported by the evidence, so there was no basis to overturn the conviction.
5 Sept 2000
The appeal is dismissed because the Court is satisfied the Magistrate properly considered and dealt with discrepancies between witnesses, correctly determined the prosecution had negatived the defence of self-defence, used 'provoked' in an ordinary rather than legal sense, and that any intervention by the Magistrate did not cause injustice; therefore there is no ground to interfere with the conviction.
17 Jun 1988
Because the magistrate did not evaluate and explain why the independent defence witness's evidence was disbelieved despite creating a real and crucial conflict with the police evidence, the conviction could not be sustained; a magistrate must state reasons sufficient to show how conflicts were resolved, particularly where independent witness evidence exists, and failure to do so requires quashing the conviction.