15 Dec 2022
The court held that the issue of whether the judge's inferences direction was unclear or imposed an onus of proof is a pure question of law that does not require leave to appeal, but refused leave on the factual question whether the case's facts and circumstances justified an inference direction in the first place.
13 Jun 2018
The judge's directions on inferences, mixed statements and possession were legally correct and adequate for the jury to determine whether the applicant possessed the drugs for trafficking; the evidence (CCTV, admissions, items found) permitted the jury to draw the only reasonable inference of possession for trafficking; no ground raised showed legal error or that the verdict was unsafe; leave to appeal was refused and appeal dismissed.
22 Mar 2018
Magistrate's assessment of credibility and reliance on appellant's inconsistent cautioned statements was entitled to deference; no material or significant discrepancies undermined PW1's central account; appellant's explanations were implausible; appellate court not satisfied magistrate was plainly wrong and therefore affirmed conviction and sentence.
11 Jan 2016
The Court refused certification because the judge's summing-up, read as a whole, expressly instructed the jury on burden and standard of proof and specifically directed that the prosecution must disprove the defence of accidental buggery beyond reasonable doubt; therefore no unresolved point of great and general importance arose requiring certification that the Liberato principle be separately applied to out-of-court mixed statements in this case.
11 Jun 2015
Leave to appeal is refused because the deputy judge correctly directed the jury on joint enterprise and knowledge, her voir dire ruling was a credibility determination not requiring fuller reasons, and the jury were properly instructed about mixed statements given the appellant testified and largely adopted the exculpatory account.
6 May 2013
Defendant's prior sworn statements and evidence in the probate proceedings are admissible because they are 'mixed'—containing admissions of factual matters (possession, use, dates) and background circumstances relevant to the circumstantial criminal case—and are therefore not inadmissible hearsay; the probative value of that evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect and the prosecution may adduce it to challenge the defendant's account without it amounting to impermissible propensity evidence.
17 Feb 2009
Leave to appeal and extension of time dismissed because the Court of Appeal was plainly right: the impugned jury directions (including on the right to silence and on the mixed statement) were appropriate, there was no real risk of miscarriage arising from the overnight direction and the jury's notification that they were ready to deliver a verdict, and no point of law of great and general importance was established.
14 Nov 2007
The conviction on count 1 was safe because the judge's directions were adequate, discrepancies in police evidence were properly left to the jury, the decision not to prosecute Chan did not produce unfairness, and the post-retirement jury communication (receipt of statute extract and refusal of audiotape) was an irregularity that was not material to cause a miscarriage of justice; however the sentencing on count 2 required correction because the judge failed to allow the usual one-third discount appropriate to the admitted partial possession, warranting reduction of the count 2 sentence to 12…
29 Mar 2006
The Court held that the trial judge materially misdirected the jury by telling them the applicant's mixed statement on arrest was 'just the defendant's reaction' and not evidence of truth; combined with inadequate summation of the defence case (failure to present the defence theory and evidence undermining the complainant's credibility), the misdirection could not be cured on the record and the proviso in s.83 CPO could not be safely applied. Consequently the conviction and sentence were quashed and a retrial ordered.
24 Mar 2005
The court held the judge correctly admitted and weighed the video-recorded interviews, properly accepted the incriminating parts of the applicant's mixed statements in light of unchallenged eyewitness evidence and the applicant's conduct (leading police to the scene), and correctly acquitted on the third charge where no independent evidence supported the applicant's isolated claim.