28 May 2021
Although the trial judge accepted that misleading statements were made, the prosecution failed to exclude an alternative, non-deceptive explanation (that Lide purchased from Deming at a lower price and NewStar was not disadvantaged); because that possibility rendered the prosecution's case insufficiently safe, the conviction was quashed and the appeal allowed.
19 Nov 2010
The Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the convictions: the trial judge properly found the accomplice witnesses credible despite motives, the evidence established that the applicant knowingly provided false measurements and entered into an agreement to have subordinates report those figures, dishonesty and intent to defraud were proved, the conduct exposed a risk of prejudice to Gammon and the viaduct's integrity, and the trial judge acted within his discretion in applying and recording appropriate caution in relation to accomplice evidence; no miscarriage of justice occurred.
14 Jan 2004
The magistrate properly found on the evidence that the appellant deliberately omitted material outstanding debts when asked, intended that omission to operate on the minds of the lenders, and that the lenders were deceived and would not have granted the loans if the true indebtedness had been disclosed; the appellate court found those findings supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.
15 Jun 2000
The appeal was dismissed because the court found an agreement to dishonestly stage a collision to obtain government payments, which demonstrated intent to defraud and completed the offence when the agreement and acts in furtherance occurred, rendering the definition of "accident" unnecessary to resolve.
3 Jul 1968
The magistrate's review and conviction were lawful: the evidence established entrustment and fraudulent intention to convert specific identified subscription monies, and there was no impermissible variance between the charge and the evidence requiring amendment under s.27(2); accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
22 May 1968
No prejudice resulted from the magistrate having a typed opening; provisional copies were properly rejected and the magistrate was entitled to disregard their contents; auditor's stamp was not decisive in face of clear evidence of manipulation and admissions by the accused; inducement can be inferred from the circumstances and did not require direct testimony; indemnity did not negate intent given other evidence of concealment; staleness of events did not defeat documentary proof; conviction and sentence were therefore upheld.