3 Feb 2026
On a full re‑examination of the evidence, particularly the CCTV footage, the appellate court concluded the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two appellants acted pursuant to an agreement to steal; reasonable alternative explanations existed (including A2's possible mistake or illness) and therefore the convictions were unsafe and were quashed.
24 May 2024
On full consideration of the record and testimony, the appellate judge found the material discrepancy between the victim's in‑court evidence and her contemporaneous police statement (PW3) raised a real and substantial doubt; because the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt on re‑hearing, the conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
30 May 2022
Conviction was quashed because the Magistrate relied primarily on CCTV without reconciling it with uncontradicted eyewitness evidence that the appellant was attacked, leaving a lurking doubt and meaning the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was fighting.
21 Jan 2022
The judge's reply, which re-emphasised that the jury must decide the case on the evidence they find proved, focus on the elements of the offence and apply the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, adequately addressed the jury's question; a Liberato direction had already been given in the summing-up and no repetition was necessary. The peripheral discrepancies identified did not create a substantial risk of miscarriage; therefore the conviction and sentence were safe and must be upheld.
28 Jan 2021
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to adequately evaluate and weigh the complainant's and defence evidence (including prior physical interactions and DW3's account) under the burden of proof standard, such that there was a real possibility the appellant may have held an honest but mistaken belief in consent; accordingly there was reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence were quashed.
22 Sept 2020
The appeal was allowed because the trial judge materially erred by failing to identify and evaluate a key third passenger and other evidence pointing to an innocent explanation, and by improperly treating the appellant's departure as probative of guilt; those errors created a residual doubt and the conviction could not stand and was quashed with sentence adjourned.
20 Sept 2019
The appellate court concluded that material aspects of the complainant's account were implausible as a matter of physical possibility (notably the position and visibility of four straight fingers without a thumb) and that these doubts rendered the conviction unsafe; accordingly the conviction and sentence were quashed.
6 Sept 2019
The leave application was refused because the planting hypothesis was speculative and unsupported by evidence, the trial judge's acceptance of police testimony was within his discretion, and the appellant failed to show a reasonable doubt significant enough to justify appellate intervention.
9 May 2019
The photographs and witness accounts contained material inconsistencies (notably the pattern of damage to the motorcycle and the relative positions of the vehicles) that created reasonable doubt about the prosecution narrative; because no reasonable jury properly instructed could safely convict on the prosecution case as presented, the conviction for careless driving and the sentence were quashed.
25 Oct 2018
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to give the essential jury direction that if the defendant's account is true or possibly true the jury must acquit; that omission could have led the jury to conclude incorrectly after rejecting parts of the defence that the prosecution had satisfied its burden, therefore the conviction and sentence must be quashed.