22 Feb 2023
Plaintiff's claim dismissed: issue estoppel and factual findings established the plants belonged to the property owner and not the plaintiff; defendants were entitled to take steps to protect the plants and persons present and the force used to restrain the plaintiff was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances; plaintiff's evidence and credibility were unreliable.
26 Oct 2022
The court preferred the police witnesses' evidence and found the Manoeuvre and handcuffing were reasonably necessary and proportionate in the rapidly evolving circumstances; accordingly the defendant established lawful justification for the force and the plaintiff's claims in battery and negligence were dismissed and no damages awarded.
28 Jan 2021
The recordings objectively corroborated PW1 that the appellant struck PW1 three times while PW1's hands were cuffed behind his back; the appellant's account was inconsistent with the recordings and environment evidence and therefore rejected; given those facts the prosecution proved the elements of common assault beyond reasonable doubt and the claimed belief in necessity of force was neither factually supported nor reasonable, so the conviction was upheld.
18 Dec 2020
On rehearing the Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings: prosecution witnesses were honest and reliable, there was no direct evidence police struck the appellant on the head, the trial judge properly assessed reasonableness of force against the chaotic facts and relevant statutory authority (Cap.232 s50), and the trial judge did not improperly shift any legal burden; therefore the conviction for resisting arrest was safe and must be dismissed only in the sense that the appeal is dismissed and the conviction stands.
19 Jun 2020
On the evidence the court found each arrest lawful either because reasons were given by arresting officers or because the arrestees already knew the general nature of the offence (exception to duty to inform); the force used in interception and during transport did not exceed what was reasonably necessary, handcuffing of P2 and P4 was justified as necessary and proportionate in the circumstances and they were released as soon as practicable; plaintiffs failed to prove assault or verbal abuse inside the police vehicle. Accordingly all tort and constitutional claims failed and judgment entered…
27 Mar 2018
Video evidence showed police struck appellant with batons before any resisting; force used was excessive and not in due execution of duty; therefore appellant was entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence and convictions for assaulting officers were unsafe and quashed.
7 Aug 2015
The Magistrate's factual finding that the appellant's force exceeded what was reasonable when recovering a backpack was unimpeached and the appellate court found no error to justify interference; additionally the appellant's absence and failure to pursue the appeal supported dismissal.
7 Feb 2012
The Registrar's conclusion that the police would easily show reasonable suspicion to justify F's arrest was unsupportable on the material before him; that material error meant the refusal of legal aid for the 1st applicant could have been different if wrongful arrest/detention claims were regarded as viable. The Registrar's decision as to the 1st applicant was quashed and remitted for reconsideration; the children's appeals were dismissed on the evidence before the court.
21 Jun 2005
The conviction was upheld because the Magistrate was entitled to accept the witnesses' evidence and the appellant's conduct in ordering his dog to bite the complainant amounted to excessive and unlawful force beyond what was reasonably permissible to break free; that excessive use of force sustained a conviction for wounding under s19.
21 Apr 1995
The magistrate conducted a detailed and careful evaluation of identification and credibility issues, applied the relevant identification principles (Turnbull), and was entitled to prefer prosecution witnesses after observing demeanour; the discrepancies and delay in identification did not render the identifications unsafe and the convictions were therefore upheld.