2 Feb 2017
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate's findings that the complainant's evidence proved the assault beyond reasonable doubt and that the absence of stains or smell did not preclude conviction were open to him on the evidence; there was no proper basis to disturb credibility findings or to invoke a lurking doubt sufficient to overturn the conviction.
22 Oct 2003
The appellate court concluded the magistrate gave insufficient weight to the appellant's familiarity with anti-theft procedures and unjustifiably rejected her innocent explanation; given her clear record and the particular facts, a lurking doubt remained and the conviction could not stand, so the appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.
20 Jun 2003
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate failed to consider the appellant's plausible innocent explanation (that he had dropped a newspaper and any contact may have been accidental), creating an incurable defect such that the conviction was unsafe; accordingly the conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside.
14 Jun 2000
Considering the evidence as a whole — the inconclusive prosecution handwriting evidence, the defence expert's exclusion of the appellant, the muddled and partially favourable evidence of the complainant, and the centrality of PW3's account — there was a lurking doubt about PW3's veracity; because the conviction was founded solely on his evidence it was unsafe and had to be quashed.
28 Jan 1999
The Court held the alleged discrepancies were not material, accepted the trial judge's assessment that PW1 was truthful and that there was no fabrication, found no lurking doubt affecting the safety of the convictions, and refused the appeals against conviction.
15 Jul 1998
The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate crucially relied on PW2's evidence of deliberate touching while failing to resolve a material and glaring discrepancy between PW2's account of where the touch landed and PW1's account, producing a lurking doubt; accordingly the conviction and fine were quashed.
22 Jan 1987
The appeal was allowed and convictions quashed because the appellate judge, on reading the transcript and findings, was left with a genuine lingering doubt about the safety of the magistrate's verdicts given inconsistencies in the evidence and the possibility of accidental touching; therefore the convictions were unsafe and had to be set aside.
9 May 1983
The magistrate's accepted factual findings — the premises' layout, lighting and observed lewd conduct on two successive days — satisfied section 117(3) that the premises were a vice establishment and established habitual user; given those findings, the roles performed by the appellants (manager, usher, cashier) constituted managing or assisting in the management under binding authorities; the magistrate's credibility assessments and admission of police evidence were lawful; therefore convictions were safe and must be upheld, while the custodial sentence of nine months for the 5th appellant wa…