6 Oct 2011
The conviction was quashed because the Magistrate's reliance on absence of fabrication and treatment of inherent probabilities effectively excluded the possibility of honest mistake and thus rendered the conviction unsafe under the proper criminal standard of proof.
10 Sept 2009
The appeal was dismissed because the trial magistrate's credibility findings were open to him, the alleged improbabilities were not inherently improbable, PW3's evidence was vague and not necessarily inconsistent with PW1 and PW2, and therefore the conviction was not unsafe or unsatisfactory.
26 May 2000
The Court held the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence, was entitled to accept the testimony of the youths and to reject the applicant's explanations, and that the convictions were neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory; the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
1 Apr 1999
The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate's findings that PWs 1–3 were honest and reliable, acceptance of PW3 as an expert, and the appellant's admissions in the post‑recorded and cautioned statements established that the appellant was receiving bets and that the seized exhibits were betting paraphernalia; the minor discrepancies and uncertainties did not render the conviction unsafe or justify quashing.
5 Nov 1998
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate, although not recording an express good character direction, had taken the character, employment and dispute context into account, assessed identification and alibi evidence cautiously, and there was no demonstrable flaw in his evaluation warranting appellate interference.
4 May 1994
The appeal is allowed because the magistrate failed to address the significant omission in the police station recorded questions and answers and did not reconcile that record with the police officers' in‑court evidence, leaving a lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction; accordingly the conviction and sentence are set aside.