26 Aug 2025
The murder conviction was quashed due to a prosecutorial error affecting credibility, but because the case was not one of insufficient evidence and prejudice from publication, appellant testimony or delay can be mitigated by trial judge measures, the interests of justice require a retrial on a fresh indictment rather than substitution of a manslaughter verdict.
31 Jul 2025
Admissible fresh call records proved the appellant did receive a return call from the deceased and therefore the prosecution's allegation that the appellant lied on that pivotal point constituted a material irregularity affecting his credibility and the safety of the conviction; although defence counsel's conduct was not found to be flagrantly incompetent, the fresh evidence required quashing the murder conviction; the proviso could not sensibly be applied to uphold the conviction and the conviction was quashed and a verdict of acquittal ordered under s.83(3).
28 Feb 2025
No misdirection occurred because the judge correctly and repeatedly instructed that the burden was on the prosecution; there was no evidential foundation for a self-defence direction (evidence and admissions showed the applicant was the initial and continuing aggressor, his admissions/CCTV statements demonstrated intent to kill, and forensic evidence supported defensive wounds on the deceased), therefore the judge properly refused to leave self-defence and refusal did not constitute an appellate error.
11 Feb 2025
Leave to appeal was granted only on Ground 2 because the alibi directions risked creating a reasonably arguable circularity between Lam's identification and the falsity of the alibi; all other grounds (alleged imbalance in summing-up, hearsay of triad-status evidence, and general safety) were found not reasonably arguable and refused.
10 Dec 2024
Conviction quashed and retrial ordered because exclusion of the clinical psychologist's evidence on the issue of diminished responsibility was a material irregularity rendering the trial unfair; by contrast the trial judge was entitled to leave the murder charge to the jury and her directions on 'substantial' were adequate given the experts' equivocal evidence and relevant factual issues.
5 Jun 2024
The Court found that the issue of causation arising from the judge's directions on the CCTV scenes and the pathologist's evidence was reasonably arguable; accordingly leave to appeal against the conviction was granted because the contested summing‑up directions could have materially affected the jury's fact‑finding on causation.
23 Apr 2024
The Court awarded costs only for the leave application (FAMC 24/2022) and the substantive appeal to this Court (FACC 8/2023) but declined costs for the original trial and the intermediate appeal because the appellant's investigative conduct justified prosecution and because the majority of appellate grounds were unarguable and unreasonably advanced; no order was made on costs of submissions given partial success.
21 Mar 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no proper evidential basis on the trial evidence to require a self‑defence direction; the Judge correctly instructed on 'unlawful' killing and burden of proof, the summing‑up fairly presented and assessed competing evidence and credibility, and no special inferential direction was required for post‑offence statements which constituted direct evidence of state of mind.
13 Dec 2023
The judge erred in answering the jury's question by conflating joint enterprise principles with traditional accessorial liability language of 'intention to encourage' and 'assistance', thereby shifting focus from the prosecution's pleaded case of joint enterprise based on specific roles; the misdirection risked causing the jury to convict on an inappropriate basis, rendering the convictions unsafe; appeals allowed, convictions quashed and retrial ordered.
21 Nov 2023
The trial judge's directions treating the absence of the stopper as a basis to eliminate the daughter were erroneous because there was no evidential foundation to infer the stopper was missing at the time of the incident given the lapse of time and handling of the boot; that misdirection risked impermissible cumulative inferences and deprived the appellant of a fair trial. The proviso could not be applied because a hypothetical reasonable jury properly instructed would not inevitably convict; convictions quashed and retrial ordered.