10 Mar 2021
The learned Magistrate properly applied the Turnbull guidelines and, finding multiple clear opportunities for identification, credible witness evidence and a fair identification parade, correctly concluded the identification evidence was reliable and that the appellant participated in a joint enterprise to sell cocaine; there was no error of law or fact and the conviction was upheld.
21 Jun 2016
The appeal is dismissed: the missing CCTV footage did not render the trial unfair because the footage did not cover the offence location and its absence could not have made a difference; dock identification was properly admitted as a recognition/scene identification and there was no broken chain; identified inconsistencies were minor and did not undermine the complainant's credibility; on the whole evidence, including complainant's eyewitness account of deliberate rubbing/withdrawal, the magistrate reasonably found indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt and his findings were not plainly wro…
21 Mar 2007
The appellate court found no error in the magistrate's fact‑finding: PW3's evidence taken in context supported that one of the attackers fled towards the blue sign and the police apprehension of the appellant at that location within seconds justified an irresistible inference that the appellant was one of the attackers; the magistrate was entitled to conclude PW3 misunderstood a cross‑examination question and to prefer the combined witness evidence, therefore the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and the appeal failed.
21 Jul 2006
The Court allowed the appeal and quashed all convictions and sentences because the trial was unfair: pervasive judicial interruptions prevented effective cross-examination, the identification evidence was unsafe and inadequately scrutinised under Turnbull principles, and there was insufficient and uncorroborated evidence linking the appellant to the robbery; these defects rendered the convictions unsafe and no retrial was ordered.
8 Jul 2003
The magistrate lawfully rejected the appellant's account because he assessed the totality of the evidence, treated demeanour only as a final consideration, addressed identification issues including prior acquaintance in accordance with Turnbull, found the victims' evidence credible and mutually supportive, and therefore the convictions were properly upheld.
8 Sept 2000
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no reasonably arguable case of substantial and grave injustice and the trial judge was right to apply the Turnbull guidelines.
9 May 1983
The magistrate properly applied the Turnbull guidelines, his findings on identification and witness credibility were open to him on the evidence (ample opportunity, good visibility, corroborative circumstances), and therefore the conviction founded on identification was safe; appeal dismissed.
7 Dec 1977
The Court held the convictions were safe: the trial judge gave adequate warnings about accomplice evidence and left critical matters to the jury, the identification evidence and corroboration were sufficient in the context, the Turnbull guidelines were not mandatory in the circumstances, manslaughter was not a viable alternative on the evidence, and directions on common intent and accessory liability were adequate; therefore the appeals were dismissed.