23 Dec 2013
The judge's directions warning the jury that the accomplice may lie to obtain a sentence discount were adequate; there is no duty to quantify any discount and the directions did not produce a substantial and grave injustice, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
23 May 2006
The trial judge misapplied the principles for awarding costs by treating the appellant's failure to open or check the parcel before signing as conduct that brought suspicion upon him; given the jury's acquittal and absence of positive reasons to deny costs the judge's refusal was a wrong exercise of discretion and must be set aside, so the appellant is awarded costs of the trial and of the appeal.
13 Oct 1998
The mistranslation did not negate the substance of the Applicant's admissions; the trial judge was entitled to infer knowledge from those admissions; expert evidence established the device met the statutory definition of arms under Cap. 238 s.2(c); accordingly the application for leave to appeal lacked merit and must be dismissed.
13 Nov 1997
The indictment was not duplicitous because it charged a single statutory offence capable of being established on one or other alternative ingredients; however, because there was a real risk the jury might convict with different members relying on different ingredients the trial judge should have directed that before convicting at least five jurors be sure of one particular ingredient or the other; that failure was a material irregularity but, on the facts (overwhelming evidence for the spray-canister/noixious-liquid basis), no miscarriage of justice occurred and the proviso under s.83(1) Cap.…
25 Jul 1997
The court allowed the appeal in part because the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the applicant's existing imprisonment and mitigating factors (including the non‑lethal nature of the air gun and the applicant's good character); the appropriate correction was to make one year of the new sentence concurrent with the sentence being served, reducing the total effective term to 5 years 3 months.
2 Oct 1975
Possession of the altered pistol and ammunition was a serious offence because of the weapon's dangerousness, but the imposed sentences of 18 months' imprisonment were excessive for a 20‑year‑old with no prior convictions; the appropriate disposition was to allow the appeal and substitute detention in a Detention Centre for the terms of imprisonment.