29 Oct 2019
The circumstantial evidence, while suspicious and capable of supporting participation in unlawful confinement, did not exclude reasonable doubt that the appellants intended and took part in the forcible removal/abduction of the victim to the village; therefore convictions for kidnapping were unsafe and were quashed.
9 Jul 2018
The application for an appeal aid certificate was refused because none of the applicant's complaints amount to reasonably arguable grounds of appeal: documentary records support the criminal record, trial counsel and the judge conducted the trial fairly, and any translation errors were immaterial to the jury's assessment and did not render the trial unfair.
22 Jun 2018
The application for an appeal aid certificate was refused because the applicant's complaints did not constitute reasonably arguable grounds of appeal: the jury directions on identification were adequate in the circumstances; the asserted alibi evidence did not contradict the identification evidence; alleged interpreter omissions were insignificant and monitored by bilingual counsel; the Punjabi document was made available and any response was a matter for counsel; and directions concerning D5 were adequate.
13 May 2013
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no material prejudice from cross-examination about Cheng's prior statements given the applicant had signalled he would call Cheng; the trial judge properly directed the jury on the elements of kidnapping and the remark complained of was not disparaging; and no direction against drawing adverse inferences from co-offenders' convictions was required because those convictions were material to the applicant's defence and had been placed before the jury by the applicant himself.
29 Jun 2005
The conviction stands because the trial judge gave adequate Turnbull directions and the circumstantial evidence (marked ransom traces, company with co‑defendants, handling and concealment of marked money) was sufficient to support guilt; the unrelated illustrative example about recent possession did not amount to misdirection; however, the sentence for D1 was reduced from 21 to 18 years because the five‑year gap with other offenders produced a manifestly excessive disparity on the facts.
28 Oct 2003
The Court dismissed the application; the sentencing judge did not err in principle or quantum: kidnapping committed as debt enforcement warranted a seven-year starting point reduced to 4 years 8 months for plea, possession of a live-capable homemade pistol for intended robbery warranted a twelve-year starting point reduced to eight years, and because the offences were separate in time there was no justification for concurrency — consecutive sentences were appropriate and within the judge's discretion.
17 Apr 2003
The Court held that the judge's answers to the jury, given after discussion with and with the agreement of counsel, did not produce unfairness or prejudice warranting reversal; even if an irregularity occurred, the circumstantial and forensic evidence was overwhelming and the proviso would apply to sustain conviction. Separately, the court found the 18-year sentence for kidnapping exceeded jurisdiction, treated the abandonment of appeal against sentence as a nullity, granted leave to appeal sentence and reduced the kidnapping sentence to the statutory maximum of 7 years.
26 Feb 2003
The sentence of 12 years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate given the applicant's central role as mastermind, procurement and provision of a pistol and ammunition, selection of a vulnerable victim, and the real risk of serious harm; the plea was properly reflected by a reduction to 12 years and the disparity with other judges' sentences did not render this sentence inappropriate.
30 Nov 2001
The Court held that a 15‑year starting point for a well planned kidnapping involving chaining, threats and detention for eight days was not excessive; as an excepted offence the mitigating effect of youth, clear record and remorse was limited; the 1st Applicant's assistance in leading police to the victim warranted a one‑year reduction of his sentence (from 10 to 9 years); the 2nd and 3rd Applicants' 10‑year sentences and the 4th Applicant's 6‑year sentence were justified and not manifestly excessive.
23 Apr 1999
The Court upheld the substantive sentences for the firearm and explosives offences as within the proper range given the exceptional gravity and public danger, but found the two year sentence for escape excessive and the aggregate totality of the sentences crushing; it reduced the escape sentence to one year and adjusted the commencement of the 29 year sentence so it runs four years earlier than originally ordered, producing an overall effective sentence of 36 years and 3 months, while otherwise leaving the individual sentence lengths intact.