11 Sept 1998
Leave to appeal was granted because it was at least reasonably arguable that the trial judge's misdirection about presumptions could have caused substantial and grave injustice and that conviction for trafficking was not inevitably established by the jury's finding on possession, so the proviso could not be assumed to cure the error.
28 Apr 1993
Given the accepted mitigation (wife's medical need), the guilty plea and the applicant's cooperation in disclosing the safe deposit box, the trial judge's 3-year deduction from the tariff starting point was inadequate; the Court of Appeal substituted a reduced sentence of 7 years on count 2 (concurrent with the 2-year term on count 1). The Court refused to admit further medical reports or hold a Newton hearing because the additional material would not materially alter the factual matrix before the trial judge and the judge had already allowed some credit for the mitigation.
14 Feb 1992
The judge properly accepted the police evidence that the applicant produced and was in possession of the black bag containing the drugs, the statutory/common‑law presumption of trafficking arose from that possession, the onus then shifted to the applicant to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities, he failed to do so, and accordingly his conviction for possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking was properly upheld.
11 Feb 1992
The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence to justify the judge's conclusion that the possession fell into the most serious category or to displace the finding of simple possession for personal use; given the admission of simple possession, the applicant's youth and lack of evidence of trafficking, the appropriate sentence was one year, and the three year sentence was excessive.
26 Jul 1991
The appeal was dismissed because the record established the magistrate adequately explained and assisted the unrepresented appellant, the confession was properly admitted as voluntary (with the only procedural criticism being that it should have been provisionally exhibited), and there was no admissible evidence capable of rebutting the presumption of unlawful trafficking, so the conviction was lawful and safe.
16 Jul 1991
The presumption that the seized quantity indicated possession for trafficking stood; the applicant failed to persuade the tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the drugs were for personal use because the trial judge, acting within permissible limits in taking judicial notice of local drug conditions and after assessing the applicant's credibility, rejected the explanation — accordingly the conviction was rightly upheld and leave to appeal refused.
24 May 1990
The appellate court upheld the trial judge's finding that, given the quantities and the judge's assessment of the applicant's evidence, the presumption of trafficking was not rebutted and there was no basis to grant leave to appeal against conviction.
13 Mar 1990
The magistrate erred by treating the 0.66 gramme quantity of No.4 heroin as justifying an unfounded inference that it could be notionally converted into a materially larger quantity or into No.3 heroin without evidence; accordingly the trafficking conviction was unsafe and must be substituted with a conviction for simple possession and the sentence reduced.
20 Dec 1989
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably and expressly considered the evidence and correctly concluded that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption that possession was for trafficking; appellate interference with a credibility-based finding was not warranted.
6 Oct 1989
The magistrate erred by taking judicial notice of the alleged uninterrupted availability of drug suppliers during the Chinese New Year period without evidence and without advising the appellant of that personal view or giving him an opportunity to rebut it; consequently the conviction for trafficking could not stand and must be reduced to simple possession, and the sentence set aside given time already served.