28 Aug 2024
The court refused the application for a certificate because the points raised were case‑specific factual disputes already addressed by the court and did not involve a question of law of great and general importance nor demonstrate substantial and grave injustice as required by s32(2) Cap.484.
7 Jul 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly accepted PW1's reliable identification evidence, the prosecution expert tests established the laser pens were Class 3B devices capable of causing eye injury, the chain of custody was sufficiently proven and the defence inability to test the exhibits did not render the trial unfair; on that basis the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt both common assault and possession of offensive weapons with intent.
23 Jul 2019
Although the trial evidence (opening the door, sole possession of 14 drug units, large cash sum, paraphernalia and presence of many users) could suffice to infer operation and possession for supply in the absence of an explanation, there was a realistic basis to conclude the trial judge's remarks may have misled the applicant into silence and thereby compromised fairness; accordingly leave to appeal against the convictions on counts 1 and 2 was granted (limited to the grounds raised).
27 Nov 2017
The judge's cumulative conduct and hostile attitude towards the unrepresented appellant was sufficiently overbearing that an informed observer would regard the trial as unfair; accordingly the convictions were quashed and, having regard to the minor nature of the offences and psychiatric reports indicating delusional influence on the appellant's behaviour, no retrial was ordered.
22 Aug 2012
The summing-up was unbalanced and unfair: the judge's comments effectively invited the jury to accept the complainant's account and reject the applicant's, and the judge failed to neutralize prejudicial matters raised by prosecuting counsel (destruction of evidence and flight) that were not part of the prosecution case; as a result the conviction was unsafe and had to be quashed and the sentence set aside.
26 Jan 2010
The application for a certificate was refused because it was out of time and, critically, the issues raised were matters of fact only and did not involve any point of law of great and general importance; therefore a certificate under section 32 could not be granted.
1 Feb 2008
Viewed in the context of the whole trial the judge's interventions were directed at remedying prosecutorial disorganisation and securing efficient, intelligible presentation of evidence; they did not amount to unfairness, bias or taking over the prosecution case, and therefore the convictions and sentence were safe and the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.
21 Jan 2003
The applicant was given clear and strong advice by counsel, understood the seriousness, signed a note declining to give evidence as an informed tactical decision, and has failed to prove flagrant incompetence; accordingly the conviction is safe and the application is dismissed, although three months of time served pending the application are not to be reckoned as part of the sentence under s.83W CPO.
18 Feb 1998
The judge's inquiries were sufficient to ensure the appellant knew what he was doing when deciding to call his co-defendant; there was no duty to go further and detail potential dangers, and therefore the trial was not rendered unfair and the application is dismissed.
23 Sept 1997
The Court held the deputy judge's summing-up was fair and balanced, discrepancies in the prosecution case were matters for the jury to resolve, the short deliberation time did not demonstrate insufficient consideration, and there was no basis to regard the conviction as unsafe; therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.