31 Mar 2009
Where a witness had close, repeated and clear opportunity to observe the alleged offender and the judge properly considered discrepancies in descriptions and identification procedures, material inconsistencies that are explained as estimations do not render identification unsafe; therefore the conviction should stand.
3 Jul 2002
The trial judge's directions on demeanour and the use of exhibits were legally correct and balanced; there was overwhelming evidence including admissions and the composition and distribution of the 'robber's kit' for which no credible innocent explanation existed, therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal was dismissed; the court exercised its power under section 83W Cap.221 to exclude three months of custody for each applicant.
29 Aug 1997
Convictions were quashed because the absence of a ruling on the admissibility of the oral statement given the possibility of ICAC inducement, together with the ambiguous and inconclusive content of the verbal, left reasonable doubt as to the safety of the verdicts and the sufficiency of proof of knowledge required for the deception conspiracy.
16 Aug 1995
The trial judge was correct to put the earlier judge's ruling to one side and determine admissibility afresh; defence counsel's tactical choice not to rely on the earlier ruling meant there was no basis to infer the officer had been disbelieved; the confession was properly admitted and the conviction was safe, so leave to appeal was refused.
7 Jun 1995
The Court held that the inconsistency in the prosecution witness's evidence was not material to the fact in issue, and the trial judge's finding that the applicant lacked credibility was sound; therefore the verdict was not unsafe and the application to appeal was dismissed.
31 May 1995
The Court held that the judge's reasons for disbelieving the applicant (financial capacity and variation in packet weight/purity) were unsound or neutral and that the applicant's account was not inherently improbable; therefore the verdicts of possession for the purpose of trafficking were unsafe and were set aside and substituted with guilty verdicts for simple possession, with consequential alteration of sentences.
26 May 1995
The judge's reference to the caution statement recording 'unemployed' was an accurate and balanced engagement with evidence that the jury had before it; the direction did not unfairly prejudice the applicant or render the unanimous verdict unsafe, therefore the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 Dec 1993
The confession was voluntary, adopted by the applicant, and corroborated by independent evidence that he demanded a protection fee; the trial judge's acceptance of the credible police evidence was open to him, so the conviction was safe; the aggregate sentence was within a proper range and not manifestly excessive, therefore both applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.
7 Jul 1993
Leave to appeal refused because the trial judge lawfully exercised his discretion to proceed without the unavailable prosecution witness, his extensive questioning of a prosecution witness was judicial and impartial, and the evidence supported reasonable inferences of intent to deceive and dishonesty sufficient to sustain the convictions on Charges 5 and 6.
11 Oct 1989
The trial judge properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witnesses, correctly found no legitimate punting arrangement, concluded the defendants made unwarranted demands with menaces (both express and implied) and that the subsequent receipt of $60,000 amounted to theft; therefore the convictions were safe and the appeal is refused.