30 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because, even accepting the applicability of the revised guidelines and reassessing role and culpability, any reduction in sentence would be insubstantial (around one month) and therefore not a ground for appellate interference; the offence remained extremely serious and refusal of out‑of‑time leave was appropriate.
23 Mar 2026
The conditional assignment was ineffective because the condition precedent (cheques being honoured) failed; the cheque dishonours constituted a fundamental breach so the surrender was rescinded and landlord's remedies revived; related-company arrangements supported treating the scheme as an attempt to evade obligations; the respondent's out-of-time appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success or other reason for indulgence under the governing rules, so leave and a stay were refused.
10 Sept 2025
Leave to appeal against conviction and leave to appeal out‑of‑time against sentence were refused because the trial judge properly directed the jury about reliance on PW1 and inconsistencies, the jury could rationally convict, and the sentencing judge followed orthodox starting points and methodology so the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
30 Oct 2024
Bail was refused because the applicant failed to show any real prospect of success on appeal or special circumstances warranting release: the sworn statements of trial counsel established that the applicant was advised about amended charges and likely sentence, the applicant confirmed the factual basis (including the 100+ count figure) without objection, and the trial judge's totality assessment (seven years with partial concurrency) was not manifestly excessive or plainly wrong.
15 Aug 2024
The appellant's discount was reduced to 38% because his multiple non‑prejudicial statements were undermined by equivocal, diminishing testimony at trial that materially limited the practical usefulness of his assistance and contributed to aborting the first trial; allegations of bribery and assault were unsupported and did not justify additional mitigation; therefore original sentence was reduced from 13 years 6 months to 12 years 6 months (38% discount from the adopted starting point).
1 Mar 2024
The Board’s applications were allowed because it promptly applied after being informed of the CarryOn Order, there was a real and substantive need to test conflicting evidence on the applicant’s occupation and earnings which could materially affect quantum, and allowing the applications caused no prejudice to the applicant; accordingly joinder and leave to file an appeal out of time were granted to protect public funds and enable proper assessment of compensation.
17 Mar 2023
The Court held the trial judge's directions on provocation were adequate and the jury were sufficiently apprised of the defendant's background; mental illness cannot be treated as a characteristic attributable to the reasonable man for the objective limb of provocation unless the provocation was directed at that illness; the late psychiatric evidence was not credible in light of the remand history and would not have altered the verdict; therefore out‑of‑time leave was refused and the conviction upheld.
21 Dec 2022
申請人未能在期限內合理努力提出定罪上訴且逾期上訴成功機會極微，故拒絕逾期就定罪提出上訴的許可；就刑期，上訴人的刑罰並非明顯過重，原審以3個月為基準並在認罪下判處2個月及激活先前2個月緩刑之處理乃屬適當，故駁回上訴並維持原判。
4 May 2022
Refusal to grant out-of-time leave was correct because the delay was lengthy and inadequately explained, the application lacked bona fides, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success since the psychiatric report described conscious impulsive conduct not total loss of voluntary control and did not support a defence that would vitiate the pleas; therefore the magistrate properly exercised discretion and grant of leave would cause unfairness to prosecution.
6 Apr 2022
Leave to appeal was refused: (1) leave to appeal out of time in respect of the 12 November 2021 interim access order was refused because the Fathers 1.5 month delay was substantial, his explanation (to save court resources by seeking variation first) was unsatisfactory and amounted to abuse/second bite, and (2) on the merits there was no reasonable prospect of success because the judge properly considered the Social Investigation and Psychological Reports, the childs expressed wishes and the best interests principle and did not err in exercising discretion; the application to vary the inter…