22 Feb 2005
The unresolved and material discrepancies in PW1's evidence about the time of the damage sufficiently undermined his credibility so that the convictions could not be regarded as safe; therefore the appeal must be allowed and the convictions and sentence quashed and set aside.
17 Jun 1999
Because the magistrate used the word 'skill' rather than expressly applying the test of 'care and prudence', there was a real possibility he applied an incorrect test or considered irrelevant matters; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the sentence set aside as the conviction/sentence could not be regarded as safe.
8 Oct 1997
Because the magistrate accepted PW1's evidence but failed to make the necessary specific findings as to the nature of the monies (an essential ingredient) and did not address or resolve identified weaknesses and inconsistencies in PW1's testimony—relying instead on demeanour—the conviction was unsafe; the appeal is allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
31 Mar 1988
Because the appellant had taken steps to secure representation (letters from Howell & Co) and the trial magistrate was unaware of that representation, the appellant was deprived of his right to be heard through counsel through no fault of his own; this amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence are quashed, and an early retrial before another magistrate is ordered.
22 Jul 1978
Because the appellant was charged under a provision that was not in force when the offences were alleged to have occurred, the conviction was invalid; the appellate court therefore properly allowed an out‑of‑time appeal and quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence.
22 Nov 1974
The identification evidence of all three prosecution witnesses was unsatisfactory: two failed to identify at the parade and their subsequent positive identifications occurred while the appellant was under escort by a uniformed officer, and the caretaker's evidence lacked credibility; given these defects the prosecution did not prove identity beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction could not stand.