25 Sept 1996
The appeal is allowed because the magistrate admitted prejudicial hearsay and his findings contain at least one passage that appears to rely on that hearsay, making it unclear whether the conviction rested on admissible evidence; therefore the conviction is unsafe and must be quashed.
7 Mar 1990
In exceptional circumstances where no official verbatim record exists and the appellant's case alleges unrecorded judicial interventions, the court will not unilaterally accept a party's note but will order a defined procedure: appellants consolidate and highlight the alleged interventions, submit the document to respondents for comment, then to the Master for comment, and transmit the Notice of Appeal to the Master; respondents have a duty to assist to enable a fair hearing of the appeal.
8 Mar 1982
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the magistrate's record was confused and ambiguous, he gave no clear indication that the burden of proof remained on the prosecution, and he failed to address substantial contradictions and unsatisfactory features in the prosecution witnesses' evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe.
2 Jul 1981
Convictions were quashed because the prosecution did not discharge its burden to prove that dangerous fumes were present to such an extent that persons were at risk of being overcome on that specific occasion; the evidence did not establish the requisite level and the trial record was unsatisfactory.
22 May 1978
Even if some water was present on part of the road, the magistrate was entitled to find on the whole of the evidence that water did not satisfactorily explain the collision and that the appellant was taking the bend too fast; the magistrate's interventions did not render the trial unfair, so the conviction for careless driving was supported and must be upheld.
4 May 1978
Although the magistrate's three months' sentence for stealing electricity was correct on the facts before him, the appellate court will exercise its discretion to vary the sentence to a fine of $2,000 because the appellant underwent severe surgery while on bail, and the court must also censure inadequate record-keeping practices at magistracies that prevent proper review.
18 Apr 1975
Because the record repeatedly used the notation 'In answer to Court' without indicating where the court's questioning ended and counsel's examination resumed, it was impossible to determine whether the magistrate crossed into the arena and displayed bias; the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, so the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside.