9 Feb 2018
The trial judge's failure to discharge the jury after prejudicial disclosure of an absent witness's account and the omission to give the required two‑part direction on the alleged offer to buy silence (post‑offence conduct) amounted to a material irregularity that rendered the convictions unsafe; the appeal must be allowed and the convictions quashed.
19 May 2017
The conviction was quashed because the trial judge materially erred by using the complainant's prior written statement as a previous consistent statement to bolster her credibility outside the recognised exceptions, a procedural error that rendered the conviction unsafe; other alleged errors were examined and rejected as insufficient to sustain the appeal outcome.
28 Jul 2006
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate properly evaluated the evidence: the asserted inconsistency about the identity of the banknote was immaterial; the alleged discrepancies between PW1 and PW2 were not material to credibility; the prosecutor permissibly brought the second statement to give a balanced picture and the magistrate properly exercised the residual discretion to consider it; the magistrate did not treat the appellant's denial as a lie requiring a lies direction. The conviction was therefore safe and affirmed.
26 Apr 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal reasonably concluded, on careful review of the judge's words in context, that the judge did not improperly rely on prior consistent statements nor make a fundamental error in treating the 2nd applicant's silence or in drawing inferences; no arguable departure from accepted norms was shown.
26 Apr 2005
Leave to appeal refused because the Court of Appeal appropriately and carefully examined the trial judge's remarks in context and correctly concluded there was no arguable departure from accepted norms in her treatment of the 2nd applicant's silence or inferences or in how she handled alleged previous consistent statements.
26 Apr 2001
Because the magistrate's reasons were unhappily worded and his treatment of key evidence (recent complaint, prior statements, failure to disclose a witness, assessment of the defence witness and sketches) gave rise to doubt about the safety of the conviction, the Court of First Instance allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.
3 Aug 1995
Although it was irregular to refer to prior consistent statements by PW7 and PW8, the references were not material to the fairness of the trial because the prosecutor's primary permissible purpose was to show A2 induced witnesses to lie; the irregularity did not engage s83(1) CPO and did not warrant overturning convictions; A1's nondisclosure complaint was also not shown to be material. Appeals dismissed.