3 Dec 1997
The Magistrate erred in granting a pre-emptive stay without proper inquiry; on the material before the court the repatriation and absence of the two illegal immigrants did not cause irretrievable prejudice to the defence and did not justify a stay of proceedings, therefore the stay should be set aside and the matter remitted for further proper exercise of discretion.
15 Jun 1990
Because the Court found the same vitiating error as in the co-defendant's successful appeal — the trial judge failed to consider available statements of absent witnesses and improperly exercised his discretion in continuing the trial — and because the Crown conceded the point applied to these applicants, the Court granted the extension of time, treated the hearing as the appeal, allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions and set aside the sentences.
28 Feb 1990
The conviction was quashed because the trial judge materially mis‑exercised his discretion by refusing to consider the statements of absent witnesses (notably Tokumitsu) and by wrongly treating the possibility of the accused giving evidence as a factor; that irregularity vitiated the trial and rendered the conviction unsafe.