1 Dec 2025
On re‑hearing the court concluded the trial judge failed to give adequate consideration to the possibility of inherent improbability of the appellant's participation and wrongly rejected the co-defendant's account; the totality of the evidence did not establish the appellant's participation in the theft beyond reasonable doubt, therefore conviction unsafe and quashed.
14 Nov 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds were not arguable: the trial judge gave adequate reasons, properly analysed objective bank records and funds flow, reasonably resolved claimed inconsistencies as immaterial, and lawfully rejected the appellant's improbable explanations; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
16 Sept 2025
The application for a certificate under s32(2) was refused because the points raised are essentially fact-specific or involve contested factual assessments already adequately addressed in a detailed 81-page judgment; the order in which the trial judge analysed evidence did not amount to a legal error of general importance; no issue of law of great and general importance or substantial and grave unfairness was demonstrated to justify a further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
5 Sept 2025
On a full re‑hearing the court accepted the complainant's evidence as honest and reliable, found the appellant's account confused and unreliable (particularly about the 'wash mouth' documentation), held the alleged bad behaviour was not treated as similar‑fact evidence and was not pivotal, accepted that distress/post‑incident conduct was not relied on as corroboration, found no inherent impossibility in the complainant's account, and concluded the prosecution proved both counts of indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt; the appeal was dismissed and convictions and sentence affirmed.
18 Jun 2024
The convictions were unsafe because the magistrate unfairly and inconsistently discredited key defence witnesses and failed to adequately assess inherent improbabilities and viable alternative explanations (including that the appellant believed she was authorised or invited to distribute the items); as a result the prosecution did not prove dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal succeeds.
15 Feb 2018
The Court concluded it was reasonably arguable that the trial judge erred in inferring the 7th applicant was present at the substation and participated in the assault because the identification relied on was insufficiently substantiated and over-relied on tenuous circumstantial matters (QRT membership and uncertain evidence he wore glasses); accordingly the 7th applicant was granted leave to appeal against conviction on ground 2 and may appeal on ground 1 as a matter of law without leave; leave to appeal against sentence was also granted.
21 Feb 2011
The appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence quashed because the Magistrate made material factual errors, mischaracterised and misquoted evidence, failed to reconcile discrepancies and to permit adequate investigation of a possible setup, such that the conviction was rendered unsafe.
23 Nov 2001
The magistrate did not err: he thoroughly assessed PW1's credibility and the defence of framing, properly ruled the alleged oral admission voluntary and admissible for the general issue, and permissibly used the appellant's contemporaneous lack of complaint as evidence of inconsistency rather than as an adverse inference; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Aug 1996
The appeal is allowed because independent measurements created an inherent improbability in the prosecution account of collision which the magistrate did not satisfactorily negate; with the Crown conceding the effect of those measurements the conviction was unsafe and was set aside.