7 Jul 2020
The court granted leave to appeal because it concluded there had been a substantial and grave injustice arising from the conduct of the trial and the treatment of the evidence, such that the defendant was denied a fair trial.
16 May 2013
2nd Appellant was awarded costs here and below including the trial because there were no positive reasons to deny costs: the early statements were of little weight, contemporaneous objective evidence (VTS radar, voice data recorder, video) meant his conduct did not mislead the prosecution, and the Court of Appeal should not have deprived him of costs; certificates for two counsel were granted.
14 Dec 2007
The Court held it had jurisdiction under s.17(1) Cap.484 to determine trial costs; although the appellant's convictions were set aside for misdirection, the jury had found dishonest conduct and the Court of Appeal's decision was not palpably different from the jury's finding; the appellant's dishonest conduct relevant to the charges justified refusing him the costs of the trial, so the Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's refusal to award trial costs while awarding costs of the appeal and related applications.
3 Jul 1981
The magistrate erred in relying on the appellant's aggressive conduct at sentencing to refuse probation without properly ascertaining consent and disregarding favorable probation/intake reports; given the appellant's age, circumstances and recommendations, the Training Centre order must be substituted with an 18‑month probation order and a suspended sentence was inappropriate in the case.