22 Mar 1995
The Court found the trial judge misapprehended the safety element (the cement's strength matched the misrepresented standard) and on correct facts the appropriate sentence for each conspiracy count was 15 months imprisonment; third and fourth counts of 6 months each remain undisturbed and all sentences run concurrently, producing a total effective sentence of 15 months.
23 Apr 1992
The sentences were within the proper exercise of the magistrate's sentencing discretion; they were not excessive and consecutive custodial terms were appropriate given the distinct offences and the public harm from forged residency certificates.
22 Jun 1989
The trial judge erred in failing to give a Broadhurst direction where the Crown had repeatedly characterised the defendant's two‑year‑old cautioned statement as 'a tissue of lies' and used it to invite the jury to infer guilt; that material non‑direction rendered the conviction unsafe; the appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.
13 Jan 1989
The Court accepted the trial judge's factual findings that the ICAC officers were credible, that the applicant had been properly cautioned and that Exh.P11 was given voluntarily; the detention and arrest were lawful and not in bad faith, alleged inducements were not established, and the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference; accordingly the admission of the statement and the convictions were upheld.
21 Jun 1988
The magistrate rightly convicted: when a seized document that may be used as evidence is torn by the suspect while an investigation into forgery was in progress, that act had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice and the magistrate properly inferred intent; the amendment under s.27 was lawful and did not cause injustice given the unchanged facts and opportunities to the defence, therefore the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
4 Jun 1987
The Court held there was no substance to the entrapment allegation because the applicant actively marketed forged notes and would likely have sold them to others; the trial judge did not err in assessing the applicant's role or character; given the quantity and gravity a sentence of seven years was not manifestly excessive and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
14 Mar 1986
The Court found that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient consideration to the clear records and pleas of guilty of the first two appellants and that six years was manifestly excessive in their circumstances; accordingly their sentences were reduced from six to four years. The conviction of the third applicant was upheld because the judge's directions and handling of the cautioned statement were not unfair, but in equity the Court reduced his sentence from five to four years to maintain parity with co-accused.
14 Mar 1986
The Court concluded that the trial judge had not given sufficient allowance to the clear records and guilty pleas of D1 and D2, making the original 6-year sentences manifestly excessive on their facts, and reduced each to 4 years; in relation to D3 the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the cautioned statements and defence allegations and there was no merit in the challenge to the safety of the conviction, so the conviction was upheld.
20 Nov 1984
Convictions for uttering based on photocopies (Charges 2 and 4) were quashed because the photostat copies were not shown to be forgeries in themselves and, on authority of The Queen v. Tait, convictions founded solely on photocopies cannot stand; convictions for obtaining property by false deception (Charges 5–9) were upheld as the trial judge properly rejected the appellant's account and the circumstantial evidence permitted the necessary inferences; however, the total sentence was excessive and was reduced so that concurrent sentences of 18 months' imprisonment applied to Charges 5–9.
16 Nov 1984
The November possession of notes from the same original as the forged notes used in August was admissible because it had direct probative value on the central issue of whether the applicant knew the August notes were forged; the trial judge adequately limited the jury's use of that evidence; conviction therefore stands; however the sentence for uttering forged documents (count 1) was excessive and reduced from 7 to 5 years, to run concurrently with the 5-year sentence on count 2.