15 Jan 2024
Leave to appeal conviction refused because applicant failed to show trial counsel’s conduct reached the threshold of flagrant incompetence causing a miscarriage of justice; counsel acted within acceptable tactical discretion after discussing the Notebook entry with the applicant who endorsed the defence strategy and elected not to give evidence.
17 Apr 2020
Leave to appeal and certification were refused because the trial judge correctly applied the prima facie test at the voir dire and subsequently found authenticity beyond reasonable doubt; disputed points were factual, not points of law of general importance, and no substantial and grave injustice was shown.
17 Apr 2020
Leave to appeal and certification were refused because the Appeal Committee held the judge applied the correct legal approach: admissibility at voir dire requires prima facie authenticity, authenticity may be proved circumstantially, comparator/internet footage use was a fact‑specific assessment and the judge ultimately found authenticity beyond reasonable doubt; the Questions raised were academic or factual and no substantial and grave injustice was shown.
22 Mar 2019
The Court refused leave to appeal: the repeated description of flunitrazepam as a 'date rape drug' was not prejudicial in context; the judge did not err in declining to give extended reasons for the voir dire where credibility was determinative and no material contradictions required explanation; the sentencing judge properly took relevant aggravating factors into account and the total sentence was not manifestly excessive.
30 Nov 2018
The Court held the trial judge did not err: the voir dire was properly conducted and the video interview was admissible; the summing‑up fairly and adequately covered contested issues including credibility, the voluntariness of admissions and the beyond reasonable doubt standard; the alleged defects did not render the convictions unsafe, therefore leave was refused and the appeal dismissed.
8 Nov 2013
The Court held the 1st applicant failed to prove his Notice of Abandonment was not a deliberate and informed act; the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to require a jury to answer Count 3; counsel's conduct did not amount to flagrant incompetence as tactical decisions were professionally justified and the co-defendant's out-of-court statements were inadmissible hearsay where the co-defendant was compellable; the voir dire witness tendered by the 2nd applicant related only to collateral credit and was properly excluded; accordingly both applicants' applications for leave to appeal were di…
27 Sept 2012
The Court held that a trial tribunal is not obliged in every instance to give detailed reasons for admissibility rulings following a voir dire but the rationale for the decision must be clear from the record (evidence, nature of challenge and exchanges); where the record does not make the reason clear, the tribunal should give reasons. Applying that principle, the Court refused the applicant's s32 certificate because the issues were not properly raised on appeal and no point of law of great and general importance was shown.
27 Jan 2012
A trial judge is not universally obliged to give a reasoned ruling on admissibility of contested admissions, but where the rationale for admitting or refusing to exclude evidence is not apparent from the trial record or circumstances, the judge must provide reasons because failure to do so is an error of law that frustrates meaningful appellate review.
24 Nov 2009
The trial judge properly conducted the voir dire and correctly admitted the applicant's recorded admissions; the factual complaints raised were matters for the judge or the jury and did not, individually or cumulatively, render the convictions unsafe, therefore the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 Jul 2007
Appeal allowed because the magistrate failed to hold a necessary voir dire and to rule on the voluntariness of alleged verbal admissions which she then relied on to support a finding that the written confession was voluntary; the failure constituted a material irregularity requiring quashing of the convictions and remittal for retrial.