17 Apr 2007
Given the pivotal reliance on PW1, the existence of unexplored materially inconsistent document Exhibit D5, unexplained discrepancies between amounts in the bank transfer and the receipts P11/P12, the prosecution's failure to test or recall PW1 and the resulting unresolved doubts, the conviction was unsafe and had to be quashed.
21 Feb 2003
The court held that the magistrate's adoption of a 12‑month starting point per offence was not excessive given the continuing fraudulent scheme, breach of trust and aggregate loss; however the partial consecutivity imposed for charges 10 to 12 was unjustified because the magistrate had already reflected overall culpability in her starting points, so all sentences should run concurrently, reducing the total sentence to eight months imprisonment.
11 May 1999
The Magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution's direct and circumstantial evidence and adverse credibility findings about the appellant supported the conclusions that the appellant procured the bank entry by deception, possessed the requisite intention and dishonesty at the time of the representation, and therefore the conviction was safe and must be upheld.