13 Jun 2008
Defence counsel's failure to raise and challenge a critical factual issue about the packing of the suitcase was a sustained oversight that rendered the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe; accordingly the conviction and sentence were quashed and an expedited retrial ordered within four months.
22 Jan 1999
Given the large number of similarly packaged cartons, the presence of opened cartons exposing dutiable cigarette packets, and the appellants' conduct in transporting cartons between warehouses, the court held that an irresistible inference arose that the appellants knew the goods were dutiable and that transporting/storing those goods amounted to dealing under s.17(1); the magistrate's limited reasons did not render convictions unsafe.
9 Jan 1999
The learned magistrate made detailed, reasoned credibility findings that prosecution witnesses saw opened carton boxes containing cigarettes on entry and could infer appellants' prior knowledge (supported by flight, unloading patterns and a company chop linking the 1st appellant); the inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' statements were not so serious as to destroy their credibility, and absent a lurking doubt or material irregularity the appellate court must defer to the trial judge; therefore convictions were safe and appeals dismissed.
10 May 1996
The Court held the trial judge rightly admitted the cautioned statement as voluntary, correctly treated and warned himself about accomplice evidence, and was entitled to prefer the prosecution's evidence; there was ample evidence to establish knowledge and concerted use of the forged cards, so the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Aug 1994
Given the evidence that the applicant was in the premises for over an hour, the dangerous drugs were found packaged in numerous packets and the applicant's fingerprints and drug traces connected him to the packaging implements, the jury could properly infer possession with intent to traffic; any deficiency in the judge's general direction did not render the conviction unsafe, so the appeal is dismissed.
22 Feb 1994
The summing-up contained a material misdirection by implying or creating an onus on the defendant to disprove knowledge of the contents of a locked tool-box; given the factual distinction (locked box, absence of key) and the absence of reliance on the statutory presumption, the inference of possession equating to knowledge was unsafe and the conviction had to be quashed.
13 Feb 1990
The fine of $60,000 was excessive in the circumstances of a first offender with no guilty knowledge and limited means; while a fine must at least deprive the offender of profit, sentencing formulas are guidelines and the court reduced the fine to $30,000 to reflect ability to pay and mitigation.
2 Jun 1986
Although the judge omitted the lesser warning about conflicting co-defendant evidence, the conflict and each defendant's competing interests were obvious to the jury and the evidence against D.3 (fingerprint on the folder, negatives found in the factory, possession of films and conduct resisting entry) was such that the conviction would inevitably have been the same; therefore the proviso applies and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 Nov 1985
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant caused the importation within the recognised concept of 'cause' (the importation was done on his express authority), Section 34 permits proof of the prohibited act without separate proof of omission from the manifest and places the evidential burden on the defendant, and the magistrate permissibly rejected the appellant's denial and inferred he knew the pills contained a Part I poison, therefore convictions on both charges were upheld.
6 Mar 1969
Measured but invisible traces of a dangerous drug found in an accused's seized cigarette can constitute unlawful possession where the prosecution proves the accused knew of the presence of the substance or where the s.16 presumption of possession and knowledge applies and is not rebutted; the chemist's certificate in the statutory form properly construed and supplementary evidence established the traces were in the cigarette; appeal dismissed.