10 May 2024
The appellate court, applying the retrial standard and viewing all trial evidence and exhibits, found the trial judge's credibility findings rational and that the prosecution proved intentional criminal damage beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly conviction and sentence were upheld.
8 Dec 2023
The conviction was unsafe because it rested solely on the evidence of PW1 whose credibility and reliability were seriously impugned by adverse findings in related proceedings and by inconsistencies in his records and testimony; the trial judge failed to give proper weight to those considerations and improperly disbelieved the defence counsel's explanation, producing unfairness. In those circumstances and having regard to the standard of proof, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are quashed.
22 Jul 2021
The trial judge failed to give adequate and specific directions to the jury on two critically prejudicial categories of evidence—(1) alleged post‑offence admissions attributed to the first applicant and (2) prior uncharged meetings/transactions described by the prosecution witness—such that the jury could have been misled or have wrongly relied on that evidence; those failings rendered the convictions unsafe, the proviso was not applicable, and the convictions were quashed with leave to retry reserved.
11 Jan 2019
The summing-up was fair and balanced: the judge properly directed the jury on burden, standard of proof, the right of silence, and on inferential reasoning in the specific factual context; prosecuting counsel's improper comments were addressed and cured by the judge; there was no error rendering the conviction unsafe, therefore leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.
21 Dec 2018
Because the offence was extremely serious, the prosecution evidence was strong, and despite the applicant's prolonged detention and prejudice, the interests of justice required remittal for retrial under s.83E(1) CPO; the applicant should remain remanded pending retrial; fairness required the respondent to pay half the applicant's appeal costs with counsel fees limited to one counsel.
15 Nov 2018
The judge's failure, after the jury posed multiple questions bearing directly on the defendant's credibility, to re‑emphasise that if the defendant's account is true or possibly true the jury must acquit, combined with the judge's omission to require an evidential foundation before permitting the jury to treat alleged lies and concealments as proof of the drug offence, rendered the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
16 Mar 2017
The failure by the prosecution to disclose material that was potentially relevant to the credibility of key accomplice witnesses breached the prosecution's disclosure duty and rendered the conviction unsafe; accordingly the appeal must be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a retrial on a fresh indictment ordered, subject to prosecutorial remedies and appropriate disclosure procedures prior to retrial.
12 Jul 2016
The judge's failure to give a Mushtaq direction in respect of the alleged confessions and failure to direct the jury that if the defendant's evidence is or may be true the defendant must be acquitted were material irregularities going to the heart of the defence; those irregularities rendered the conviction unsafe, requiring quashing of the conviction and ordering of a retrial.
27 Jan 2015
The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge failed to analyse and assess how the chosen system of work and contextual factors (wet/greasy floor, narrow corridor, hose placement, efficacy of boots) could have caused the appellant to trip and be unable to regain balance; that failure rendered the judge’s findings on liability unsafe and warranted quashing the decision and ordering a retrial before another judge.
21 Feb 1995
A retrial judge must generally hold a voir dire to determine voluntariness of admissions even if the same issue was determined at the original trial, unless the retrial judge is the same judge who heard the original voir dire and regards his recollection of the evidence and witnesses as sufficient to discharge the Watson duty to revisit admissibility findings.