11 Feb 2025
Leave to appeal was granted only on Ground 2 because the alibi directions risked creating a reasonably arguable circularity between Lam's identification and the falsity of the alibi; all other grounds (alleged imbalance in summing-up, hearsay of triad-status evidence, and general safety) were found not reasonably arguable and refused.
9 Dec 2021
The application for leave was refused because the trial judge reasonably and cogently accepted the prosecution's identification evidence (high quality CCTV plus witness familiarity with premises) and justifiably rejected the alibi given inconsistencies, timing of assertions, and failure to preserve corroborative evidence; there was no arguable basis to conclude the conviction was unsafe.
25 Jul 2019
The trial judge's directions were adequate; the Markuleski supplemental warning is not mandatory and should be given only when necessary; appellate intervention for allegedly inconsistent verdicts requires that no reasonable jury could have reached the impugned verdicts and, on the facts, the differing verdicts did not satisfy that threshold so the convictions on counts 1‑4 are not unsafe and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Nov 2018
The application for leave was refused because the grounds did not disclose reasonably arguable errors; the trial judge's acceptance of the shop assistant and police evidence and rejection of the alibi were legitimate credibility assessments open to him and not shown to be perverse or based on impermissible reasoning.
22 Jun 2018
The application for an appeal aid certificate was refused because the applicant's complaints did not constitute reasonably arguable grounds of appeal: the jury directions on identification were adequate in the circumstances; the asserted alibi evidence did not contradict the identification evidence; alleged interpreter omissions were insignificant and monitored by bilingual counsel; the Punjabi document was made available and any response was a matter for counsel; and directions concerning D5 were adequate.
14 Mar 2018
The trial judge conducted a careful credibility assessment, properly warned about and considered the accomplice evidence, rationally rejected the appellant's alibi and defence witnesses on identified inconsistencies and implausibilities, and therefore there was no demonstrable error justifying appellate interference; the conviction is safe and is upheld.
15 Jul 2016
The Court found no merit in the grounds attacking conviction, upheld the convictions, and held that much of the appellant’s complaint about trial fairness and counsel conduct was without substance; on sentence the trial judge’s exercise of discretion miscarried — the appropriate determinate sentences for the two sexual offences were 15 years each to be concurrent, and part of the robbery sentence should run consecutively; accordingly the 18-year rape sentence was reduced to 15 years and two years of the 4-year robbery sentence ordered consecutive producing a 17-year aggregate in CACC173/2015;…
27 Apr 2016
The appeal was dismissed because the trial magistrate properly assessed the evidence and credibility, accepted the complainant's account corroborated by medical evidence and physical evidence, found the appellant's alibi inconsistent and implausible, and there was no legal or factual error warranting overturning the convictions.
2 Oct 2015
The application for bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any ground of appeal likely to succeed; the conviction rested on credible positive identification and the alibi and supporting evidence were weak, while the absence of forensic evidence was neutral.
12 Mar 2015
Leave to appeal and the application to adduce fresh evidence were refused because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation under s83V for not adducing the material at trial, defence counsel pursued the case diligently and gave tactical advice accepted by the applicant, and the alleged trial errors were either unfounded or non‑prejudicial in light of compelling forensic evidence.