2 Mar 2017
The appeal was dismissed because the High Court found the magistrate's acceptance of PW1's credibility and identification, and the rejection of the appellant's evidence, were within the scope of the evidence and not plainly wrong; there was no basis to interfere and the conviction was therefore safe.
2 Apr 2012
The magistrate's acceptance of the police witness and rejection of the first appellant rested on impermissible speculation and assumptions (including imagined security cameras and deference to officer experience) and failed to resolve a material conflict about the first appellant's immobile prosthetic hand; those defects rendered the convictions unsafe and the appeals were allowed, convictions quashed and sentences set aside.
20 Dec 1996
By majority the Court held the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory under s.83(1)(a) because, on a review of the whole evidence, cumulative inconsistencies, evidentiary weaknesses (identification issues, conflicting statements, and forensic gaps) created a real possibility of wrongful conviction; therefore the appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. The dissenting judge would have applied the proviso and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing deference to the jury where sufficient evidence exists.
3 Jun 1991
The fresh evidence that the investigating officer engaged in inducements/payments and manipulative conduct with the Crown's accomplice witnesses so undermined the credibility of those witnesses and the fairness of the trials that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory; the appeals were allowed, convictions quashed and retrials ordered.
25 Jul 1973
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's terse statement of findings failed to address significant contradictions in the evidence (including notebook timing and medical injuries) and left the appellate judge with a real sense of unease as to the safety of the convictions; therefore the convictions could not be allowed to stand.