18 Feb 2022
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in accepting problematic and unexplained aspects of PW1's evidence and misinterpreting D2's recorded interview, and failed to address significant inconsistencies and viable alternative explanations that the drugs belonged to D2 or a third party; those failures meant the conviction was unsafe and had to be quashed.
12 Jan 2022
The Court refused bail because it concluded that the trial judge was entitled to reject the applicant's evidence and that the objective indicia—number of uniform packets, measured weights, presence of an electronic scale, admissions and surrounding circumstances—supported the only irresistible inference that the applicant possessed the drugs for trafficking; the appeal was not arguable.
5 Aug 2021
On the facts found at trial and the uncontroverted prosecution evidence, and absent rebuttal evidence from the applicant, the reasonable and irresistible inference was joint possession and trafficking with co-accused in the hotel room; therefore no arguable point of law of great and general importance arose and the s32(2) certificate was refused.
8 Jul 2021
Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because the single judge concluded the trial judge may have inadequately considered the co‑accused’s motive to lie and there were arguable errors in the trial judge’s reliance on the applicant’s uncautioned remark and in the overall evaluation of credibility, creating an arguable basis for appellate review.
3 Nov 2020
Given undisputed evidence that drugs and trafficking paraphernalia were openly and casually displayed in room 137, the applicant had the keycard, his personal effects were present, and he remained for many hours with free access, the only irresistible inference is that he knew of and participated in the trafficking; therefore there is no arguable ground for an appeal and leave is refused.
14 Jul 2020
The trial judge's rejection of the accused's self‑use account was reasonable given materially inconsistent accounts about the purchase, the implausibility of the asserted purchase price relative to market value, the lack of supporting evidence for the accused's asserted consumption method, and the objective facts that the accused carried a substantial quantity of cocaine divided into multiple small packets while travelling to a friend's flat; those facts made the only irresistible inference that the drugs were possessed for trafficking, so the conviction was safe and the leave application was…
6 Dec 2019
The court held the conviction was safe because the trial judge's directions to the jury were comprehensive, correct and fair and the jury were entitled to accept the prosecution's evidence; the sentence was appropriate given the 480g of methamphetamine and the applicant's background, so there was no arguable ground for appeal and leave was refused.
22 Nov 2019
Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused because the jury's guilty verdict was supported by the evidence and there was no arguable basis to overturn it, and because the sentence imposed was within the applicable sentencing guidelines and not manifestly excessive.
6 Sept 2019
The Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the conviction. It held the trial judge correctly found the contested oral admission and recorded caution statement to be voluntary and accepted that the applicant had effectively admitted possession; the trial judge properly rejected the defence witness as unreliable; and crucially, even absent the contested confession the proven circumstantial evidence (ownership, keys, drugs packaged for sale, scales and absence of paraphernalia for personal use, quantity and value) permitted only the irresistible inference of possession for supply so the convic…
3 Jul 2019
Given the net drug quantity (9.31g methamphetamine), total packaged weight (22.1g), single wrapped package, location and time of detention, and the implausibility of the applicant's explanations, the only reasonable inference was possession for trafficking; any possible error in admitting the cautioned statement was immaterial to the safety of the conviction.