2 Nov 2016
The expert reports were tainted by reliance on inadmissible solicitor instructions and unverified medical records; the reports and any joint report based on them were excluded and the court ordered a new joint expert report prepared under the correct protocol excluding consideration of the limited health records.
30 Oct 2015
The Court held that (1) the judge did not err in admitting the applicant’s statements and evidence from the probate proceedings as 'mixed' statements and admissible background/admissions; (2) the trial judge's directions to the jury, including the two‑stage qualification (Lucas style) on lies and reminders on burden and standard of proof, were adequate and did not render the convictions unsafe; (3) the proposed fresh evidence under s83V was refused as unreliable, late or of limited probative effect and would not afford grounds to allow the appeal; and (4) sentencing was within proper exercise…
14 May 2015
The magistrate validly found on the evidence and proper credibility assessment that Exhibit P6 was created after 5 March 2013, was not signed by the sponsor, and that the appellant knew it was false; circumstantial evidence (the appellant supplying his own phone number as the sponsor's) supported knowledge; thus the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction must stand.
23 Jul 2008
The conviction was quashed because the trial judge's reasoning did not adequately deal with material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence (notably contradictions about the handwriting note and the refusal to provide a handwriting sample) and other unexplained matters, rendering the conviction unsafe.
11 Apr 2000
The magistrate's credibility findings and his assessment that the defence documents were fabricated were supported by the evidence (including firm prosecution witness testimony and inconclusive handwriting expert opinion); there was no material misdirection affecting the verdict and the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
28 Oct 1994
A genuine mistake occurred when US$210,000 deposited by another customer was wrongly credited to the defendant; the defendant opportunistically obtained and retained the funds by copying the other customer's signature and did not change position in good faith; accordingly plaintiff is entitled to restitution of US$210,000 plus interest from 1 April 1992 and costs on a common fund basis.
6 Nov 1987
The convictions were upheld because the Crown adduced abundant direct and circumstantial evidence supporting guilt; the trial judge properly allowed the rectification of the missing computer certificate; the inferences drawn were permissible and described as irresistible; and any non-expert handwriting evidence was of secondary importance and did not vitiate the verdict.
5 Jul 1985
Because uncontroverted evidence established the respondent was not served and the District Court acted on false testimony, both the decree nisi and decree absolute were nullities; the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s.14(2)(d) of the Supreme Court Ordinance to set the decrees aside and, on the facts (petition under s.11A(1)(d) and no consent), the court declined to order a re-trial.