14 May 2018
Because the Magistrate excluded the appellant's oral admission as unsafe and gave no adequate explanation why PC5018's related evidence of finding the identity card on the appellant could nonetheless be safely relied upon, the appellate judge was not satisfied the conviction was safe and quashed the conviction.
20 Dec 2005
The Court affirmed the Magistrate's factual findings: the police evidence and a voluntary admission were credible, any minor discrepancies were immaterial, and the Magistrate legitimately inferred joint venture and prior knowledge from positions, conduct and admission; accordingly the elements of s.27(1) were established and the conviction was safe.
18 Aug 2005
The judge held that the magistrate had properly considered the evidence and demeanour, the alleged inconsistencies were either insubstantial or explicable (eg interviewer confusion), there was no miscarriage of justice or misdirection, and therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
2 Jun 2005
The appellate court found the magistrate had fully evaluated and analysed the evidence and discrepancies, there was no evidence of bias, clerical mistakes were minor and immaterial, and therefore the conviction was not unsafe or unsatisfactory; appeal dismissed.
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.
27 Jun 1996
The Court affirmed the trial judge's evaluation that the son's identification of the applicant was reliable under the Turnbull guidelines and that the father's failure to identify did not render the convictions unsafe; the judge's isolated misstatement did not undermine the soundness of his overall reasoning, so the convictions and sentence were upheld.
27 Oct 1995
The absence of evidence of any triad activity or association from 1980 until the 1995 statement, combined with the thin nature of the prosecution case and the limited probative value of the caution statement, raised a reasonable doubt such that the conviction was unsafe and had to be set aside.
20 Sept 1995
The Court held that the trial judge's remarks about possible exaggeration did not amount to a finding of general untruthfulness; having meticulously assessed the evidence he was entitled to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant organised a group to assault PW2, and therefore the convictions on the wounding and triad membership charges were safe and must be upheld.
29 Sept 1994
The exclusion by the trial judge of evidence relating to the co-accused's prior charges was correct because it had minimal probative value and would invite speculation; there was no basis to conclude the conviction was unsafe, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
28 Jun 1993
The conviction was unsafe because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant deliberately struck the complainant on the head with the revolver; the expert's theorising about the mechanism of injury was improperly influential and the injury pattern and witness evidence were inconsistent with the Crown's case, creating reasonable doubt.