20 May 2022
The Court upheld the conviction because objective evidence showed the appellant knew his account lacked funds, issued a cheque after delivery and repeatedly failed to pay or meet arranged collection times, demonstrating dishonest intent to evade payment; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and not open to appellate interference.
5 Oct 2005
Convictions were unsafe because the trial judge failed to consider significant evidence and admissions that could show RHK knew of or condoned inflated quotations and thus undermined the essential element of intent to deceive, and the judge wrongly treated D2's out-of-court exculpatory statements as unusable for the appellant; accordingly appeal allowed, convictions and resultant orders set aside and retrial ordered.
14 Jan 1988
Appellant's unauthorised and dishonest signing of the direct debit authorisation created a real risk of prejudice to the insurer's rights by producing false entries that could affect the insurer's financial position; that risk established intent to defraud and upheld the conviction for forgery under s72(1).
4 Sept 1969
Convictions under s.3 Cap.41 cannot stand where there is no evidence that the defendant intended to deceive in relation to the goods covered by the registered trade mark; mere manufacture, possession or sale of empty bottles bearing the registered device, without evidence of use or intended use to pass off goods as the registered product, is insufficient to constitute the offence.