6 Mar 2017
Given the extensive admitted facts and documentary evidence, the magistrate correctly concluded that the only irresistible inference was a conspiracy between the two defendants and that their conduct was dishonest under the Ghosh test; the appellate court found the magistrate was entitled to draw those inferences and upheld the convictions.
5 Jan 2008
The magistrate's detailed credibility findings were not vitiated by the inadvertent naming error and were sufficient to uphold the convictions; however, on sentencing mitigation and suitability the court substituted the custodial term with a 200‑hour community service order, quashing the six‑month imprisonment.
1 Aug 2007
The court held that under s.17A Evidence Ordinance the university witnesses and the documentary records were properly admissible because a system of record‑keeping could be inferred from their evidence and the existence and nature of the records; R v Patel was distinguishable under a different statutory regime, so the absence of entries was prima facie proof the applicant did not attend the universities and the leave application was dismissed.
1 Mar 2007
Appeal allowed because the appellant's continued incarceration in light of the sudden death of her otherwise healthy spouse constituted exceptional humanitarian grounds warranting immediate release; the court did not need to decide the applicability or validity of the Court of Appeal guidelines to reach this conclusion.
7 Jul 2006
The abandonment was valid and not a nullity because the applicant was aware of the nature and effect of the document he signed; ignorance of law or lack of professional advice and a mistaken view about prospects of success do not invalidate an abandonment of appeal.
12 May 2006
The application for a certificate under section 32(2) is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify a proper statutory limb and no point of law of great and general importance arises; the allegation of substantial and grave injustice was not a matter for this court to certify.
31 Mar 2006
The court held that the judge correctly treated whether the applicant intended to deceive as a question of fact separate from mere regulatory breach; the applicant had read the HFA approval memorandum and was aware of reporting obligations, the trial judge's finding of dishonesty was open on the evidence, convictions on charges 1–10 were quashed on respondent's concession but convictions 11–19 were upheld under the proviso because the applicant knowingly continued to receive HFA after loss of possession and intentionally omitted to inform the Director, establishing deception.
18 Jul 2005
The appeal is dismissed because (1) the magistrate was not required to speculate about what DW2 would have said and the circumstances differ materially from R v Holgate so Ground 1 fails, and (2) the magistrate was entitled, having seen and heard the witnesses, to prefer the prosecution evidence and to reject the defence witnesses on credibility grounds so Ground 2 fails; accordingly the convictions are safe and are upheld.
10 Mar 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge correctly found identity established beyond reasonable doubt by fingerprint and corroborative police and court records, the Applicant failed to discharge the evidential burden to raise Dissociative Amnesia in 1988 (experts relied solely on untested, self-serving assertions), and there was an admitted fact that departmental officials relied on the false representation, establishing the deception element.
23 Dec 2003
Revocation of bail was a justified protective measure and did not demonstrate bias; the magistrate reasonably assessed credibility using witness testimony, documentary evidence and admitted facts and was entitled to find the appellant made dishonest misrepresentations to obtain pecuniary advantage, so the conviction is safe and must be upheld.