15 May 2019
The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court found the trial judge’s acceptance of the complainant’s account and conclusion that the CCTV did not show an assault were supported by the footage and the overall evidence; there was no basis to interfere with the conviction.
5 Aug 2005
The magistrate properly assessed and accepted PW2's credible account and was entitled to convict; the conviction is safe. The prior two-month suspended sentence had expired before the later conviction and therefore could not be activated under ss.109C-109D, so the attempted activation was invalid; the three-month immediate sentence was appropriate and is confirmed.
24 Dec 2003
The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in refusing adjournments; late disclosure did not produce demonstrable prejudice; the magistrate's credibility findings as to PW1 were reasonably open on the evidence; and the appellant's driving constituted a course of conduct meeting the statutory test for dangerous driving under s37(4) RTO, therefore the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
9 May 2003
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate had correctly applied the appropriate starting point for this class of offence and there were no personal or legal factors of sufficient weight to justify reducing the 12‑month sentence.
26 Jul 1994
The magistrate, being in the best position to assess PW1's credibility, could find the appellant was party to threats and believed he had a right to demand repayment; because the defence did not raise that the appellant believed the menaces were a proper means, and the means were plainly improper, the appellant's lack of subjective belief need not be considered under R v Lawrence and Pomroy, so the conviction stands.
26 Apr 1973
The appeal was dismissed because the trial magistrate's factual findings were supported by eyewitness identification of the weapon and the seriousness of the offence combined with the appellant's antecedents warranted the sentence; there was no basis to disturb the sentencing exercise.
27 Nov 1972
The conviction and concurrent nine‑month sentences were upheld because the magistrate's recorded guilty plea unambiguously admitted possession, the Probation Officer's report corroborated ongoing addiction and lack of remorse, and there was no mitigation to justify reducing the sentence.