14 Mar 2024
The conviction was quashed because the sole prosecution witness gave materially contradictory evidence regarding whether the appellant produced the identity card, undermining his credibility and rendering the conviction unsafe; a retrial was refused as futile given the contradiction and sole unreliable witness.
14 May 2018
Because the Magistrate excluded the appellant's oral admission as unsafe and gave no adequate explanation why PC5018's related evidence of finding the identity card on the appellant could nonetheless be safely relied upon, the appellate judge was not satisfied the conviction was safe and quashed the conviction.
5 Mar 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant raised no reasonably arguable grounds: the sentencing judge properly aggregated 35.36g of methamphetamine to a starting point (105 months), correctly rejected the unsupported claim that a 10% portion justified a discernible personal‑use discount, applied the sentencing guideline that already incorporated a guilty‑plea reduction for the identity card offence, and legitimately ordered the 12‑month identity card sentence to run consecutively as it added to overall culpability without breaching the totality principle.
7 Feb 2018
The magistrate's adverse credibility findings, reached after observing witnesses and weighing inconsistencies, were open on the evidence; the prosecution proved possession without reasonable excuse beyond reasonable doubt and there was no legal or procedural error, and the sentence of 18 months was appropriate having regard to the Li Chang Li guideline.
4 Dec 2017
The magistrate’s careful credibility assessment and factual findings that the appellant possessed the identity card and had no reasonable excuse were not shown to be plainly wrong on appeal; therefore the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction stands.
3 Jan 2017
The magistrate's adverse credibility findings were entitled to deference because the defence account was inherently improbable and inconsistent with other evidence (close relationship with the owner, failure to notify owner, unexplained photo on phone); therefore no reasonable excuse or lawful authority existed and the conviction was safe; the sentence followed established guideline and was not excessive, so the appeals failed.
21 Dec 2006
While 3 years was an appropriate starting point for each deception offence, the totality principle required reduction of the aggregate sentence for the deception offences to 3 years; the identity card sentence was reduced to 12 months (with 3 months to run consecutively because the ID added to criminality), producing an overall custodial term of 3 years and 9 months (reduced from 4 years and 9 months).
14 Jul 2006
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because the 3-year starting point on charge 12 was manifestly excessive and apparently imposed without reference to authority; the full court must reconsider that starting point and the totality of sentence in light of existing sentencing guidelines.
20 Oct 2003
The conviction was unsafe because there was an unresolved conflict about the origin and chain of possession of the identity card and the prosecution failed to call a material witness (Tam) leaving open the real possibility that the card did not come from the Appellant; therefore the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met and the conviction had to be quashed.
8 Aug 2002
The proper offence was using the identity card under s.7A(1A) because although the card had been entrusted to the appellant (giving a reasonable excuse for mere possession), the appellant's production of the card to police amounted to use without lawful authority; the charge was amended accordingly and the sentence on that charge was reduced because the original starting point after trial (18 months) was excessive on these facts and a reduced starting point of 12 months with plea discount produced an 8 month sentence.