15 Jan 1988
The convictions were safe because the appellant's detailed written admissions were accepted as true by the magistrate and the failures to identify him at parades were plausibly explained; the sentences were within the normal range and properly imposed so the appellate court would not interfere.
18 Aug 1970
Although there were irregularities in the identification parade and it would have been preferable that the female victim gave evidence, the totality of the evidence—immediate report of the incident, accurate noting of the car registration, sighting and pursuit of that car within ten minutes, the appellant fleeing from the vehicle and being arrested nearby, and identification by an eye‑witness who observed the assault at close quarters—was sufficient to support the conviction; the appeal and the out‑of‑time application against sentence are dismissed.
11 Jun 1968
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge did not err in admitting the challenged statements (the Crown discharged the burden to show they were voluntary), the identification evidence (victim IDs plus recovered watches) was reliable and corroborative, and the application to admit fresh evidence and to call the appellant to give oral evidence on appeal was rightly refused as not meeting the high threshold for new evidence and because the post‑conviction letter was self‑serving and the appellant's evidence was effectively available at trial; therefore convictions and concurrent sentences…