21 Jan 2020
The Court held the jury's guilty verdicts were supported by the complainant's credible evidence and corroborative conduct (complaint to a teacher), the trial judge's directions were correct and fair, and there were no arguable grounds rendering the convictions unsafe; therefore leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
14 Apr 2015
The application for a certificate under section 32(2) was dismissed because the proposed point of law was not arguable and there was an unexplained three‑week delay; accordingly the Court refused to certify the question as one of great and general importance.
17 Aug 2010
The re-opening application was dismissed because the impugned out-of-court allegations were not treated as evidence against the applicant, the Court's conclusion that the applicant was responsible for the murder was based on admissible evidence (seller's testimony and telephone records) and the jury's disbelief of the applicant left no reasonable basis to overturn the conviction; the application therefore lacked foundation.
11 May 2010
The court held there was no lurking doubt: the quantity and open visibility of drugs in multiple locations of a small flat rented by the company of which Applicant was director and majority shareholder, together with company ownership of containers and Applicant's admitted use of the flat, made it reasonable for a jury to infer possession and knowledge; the conviction was safe and the leave application was dismissed.
26 Aug 1997
The Deputy Judge lawfully selected a 10-year starting point for unlawful possession of a loaded pistol, lawfully applied a 3-year discount in light of the jury verdict and the possibility of entrapment, and the resulting 7-year sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle; therefore the application for leave to appeal out of time against sentence is dismissed.
8 Aug 1990
The jury properly found provocation on the evidence and, absent any demonstrable error or insufficiency, the appellate court will not interfere with the conviction; therefore leave to appeal is refused.
27 Dec 1973
Leave to appeal was refused because the jury could legitimately disbelieve the applicant's account and convict of murder; the verdict was not shown to be unsafe or unsatisfactory on the file and s.83 CPO did not justify disturbing the jury's verdict.
28 Mar 1973
Leave to appeal was refused because no evidence was shown to have been wrongly admitted or rejected, the cautioned statement was properly admitted and irrelevant to the contested fact of intercourse which was admitted, the appellant's late claim of a $100 payment lacked credibility, and there was evidence sufficient for a jury to convict.
8 Mar 1971
The Full Court held that the judge did not err: where the jury's factual implication is not clear the sentencer may make an independent finding and the judge was entitled to describe the case as very serious and impose the sentence passed; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.